In recent times, social movements aimed at protecting the environment have been witnessed in many parts of the world. Kendall (2016) defines a social movement as a purposeful group working together towards a common goal of realizing social change. Environmental racism is not a new term in social activism, and it has a different interpretation by government agencies and activists. For example, according to environmental advocates, prevention of all forms of pollution is a form of environmental justice (Judy, 2018). At the same time, government authorities allow the production of waste provided it does not adversely affect disadvantaged communities.
Regardless of the meaning of these terms, it is vital to note that all society members are eligible for protection against extreme environmental hazards, which is a responsibility of governments (Scott & Smith, 2018). The environmental justice framework and environmental racism are related since there is a need to involve all people and treat them equally when formulating and enforcing environmental policies to protect them from hazardous emissions.
The Environmental Justice Framework
Major ecological discourses have been about environmental justice, which makes it a significant issue. Environmental justice is the meaningful involvement and fair treatment of all people regardless of their income, national origin, race, and color with respect to the enforcement of environmental laws, development, implementation, policies, and regulations (Scott & Smith, 2018). Every member of society should be safe from adverse environmental effects resulting from ecological policies. In this regard, the environmental justice framework aims to cushion the “sacrifice zones,” including racialized and low-income communities, from ecological harms from heavy industry, toxic waste, pollution, and contamination (Scott & Smith, 2018, p. 863).
In many parts of the world, a lot of people live downstream and windward of mineral extraction and petrochemical productions that have been neglected at the expense of capital accumulation. The environmental justice framework (EJF) is multifaceted and cannot be isolated from social and political fields. According to Kendall (2016), the four social movement levels are local, regional, national, and global. Therefore, the EJF can be implemented at all these levels to achieve the desired change.
A practical environmental justice framework provides an explicit link between ecological and social justice concerns. The major components of the EJF include social movement building, justice, environmental rights, ecological principles, politics, and corporate-community relations. Minor sections of the major framework provide the context of the environmental justice paradigm, comprising an ideological package with a practical way of thinking about human-environmental relations. For many years, the politics of the people of color have revolved around activism, and environmental justice has been one of the issues they have been fighting for (Judy, 2018).
A proper policy regarding reducing exposure to environmental pollution has been lacking, and it is an area that the environmental justice framework addresses. However, according to Kendall (2016), collective behavior is a requirement for social change success. If the people disadvantaged by environmental harm can come together and rally for a change, they are more likely to succeed as an organized group. Thus, the success of the quest for environmental justice calls for a consideration of social and ecological concerns.
Environmental justice will be attained when everyone is equally protected from environmental hazards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides a clear framework for environmental justice, trying to redress the issue. However, the success of the EPA’s efforts is negligible since adverse environmental effects are still faced by the poor and other minorities (Scott & Smith, 2018). One reason for the failure of the EPA Environmental Justice Office to effectively address environmental injustice is the conflicts of interest, which lead to biased judgment in the event of procedural environmental justice.
Nevertheless, many indicators and instruments have been developed to help map ecological inequalities in the United States. This approach is likely to succeed owing to the advanced legislative systems in the U.S. Hence, the EPA regulation is a part of the environmental justice framework, but its success has been hampered by a number of factors, including judgment bias in the justice system.
The Relationship between the Environmental Justice Framework and Environmental Racism
Over the years, businesses, community organizations, and governments have joined hands to help reduce pollution and clean up contaminated sites. One way to ensure companies comply with environmental laws is by issuing them permits to limit the emission of pollutants (Scott & Smith, 2018). This is one of the areas the environmental justice framework addresses, and some parts of the United States have a clean natural environment leading to a high quality of life.
However, not all people benefit from these policies, resulting in environmental racism, a significant component of U.S. social movements. Kendall (2016) describes environmental racism as a form of bias towards low-income people, especially ethnic minorities, resulting from exposure to hazardous waste facilities. Humans have limited control over their physical environment, which produces many changes in people’s livelihoods. Indeed, the colored populations and the poor are more exposed to contamination and pollution than their counterparts from upper-income neighborhoods. Therefore, environmental justice and environmental racism are related since the latter is a result of the failure of the former.
The decision-making processes of most government agencies more often do not address the environmental justice changes for the minority groups. For example, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more exposed to the adverse effects of environmental pollution. Moreover, this challenge is further amplified by the disproportionate climate change has on vulnerable groups, including people of color, thereby promoting environmental racism (Scott & Smith, 2018).
Some people argue that this term is too restrictive as it excludes the people beyond the ethnic bracket who are exposed to environmental hazards. However, this injustice can be prevented by the concerted efforts of many partners, such as community members, businesses, state, local, and federal governments, and non-governmental organizations. Some of the ways to address this issue include redressing existing inequalities, obviating proof of intent to discriminate, preventing harm before it occurs, and guaranteeing environmental protection to all people (Teixeira & Krings, 2015). Therefore, although governments are blamed for environmental injustice, many other partners play a role in addressing the issue.
In conclusion, social movements are instrumental in achieving change in society. With many extraction and petrochemical companies expanding their operations across many parts of the United States, a new term, environmental racism, has been coined, which is related to environmental justice.
People of color are the most affected by the adverse effect of contamination and pollution because they are located in the sacrifice zones, especially windward and downstream, where much of the toxic waste is directed. An environmental justice framework has since been adopted to help address this issue to ensure humanity is protected from the negative consequences of environmental degradation, including climate change. Some governments have implemented measures aimed at cushioning the sacrifice zones from environmental racism, but it requires concerted efforts from the community members, non-governmental organizations, and other interest groups.
References
Judy, L. (2018). Liberty and environmental justice for all? An empirical approach to environmental racism. Wake Forest Law Review, 53(4), 739–766.
Kendall, D. (2016). Sociology in our times. Cengage Learning.
Scott, D. N., & Smith, A. A. (2018). “Sacrifice zones” in the green energy economy: Toward an environmental justice framework. McGill Law Journal, 62(3), 861–898.
Teixeira, S., & Krings, A. (2015). Sustainable social work: An environmental justice framework for social work education. Social Work Education, 34(5), 513–527.