Today the humanity faces one of the most serious challenges it has ever experienced. The fast evolution of the industry, the rise of the consumer society, and the unwise use of natural resources placed people at the age of disaster because of the critical deterioration of the environment’s state. Global warming, high levels of pollution, and waste are nagging problems that should be resolved; otherwise, there is a risk of irreversible changes leading to the extinction of most species, including humans. However, looking at the problem from another angle, it is also possible to admit that the most problematic areas characterized by the deteriorated environment’s state are distributed unequally. In many cases, the level of pollution or negative factors are linked to social determinants, such as the income level of people living in the area, their culture, and race. Under these conditions, the concept of environmental racism becomes one of the essential problems nowadays.
The given term is introduced in the second half of the 20th century to outline the growing scope of the problem. It states for injustice because of the racialized approach to considering environmental issues occurring in practice and policy (Bullard, 2008). In other words, the communities consisting of minorities or specific ethnic groups become disproportionally exposed to hazards due to policies making them live close to toxic waste sources, such as power stations, mines, sewage words (Bullard, 2008). The global waste trade can also be viewed in terms of environmental racism. In most cases, the final destination is characterized by the presence of vulnerable groups with characteristics mentioned above (Bullard, 2008). Considering the global tendency towards the deterioration of the situation, the further employment of such discriminative practices might precondition the emergence of critical issues among these societies.
Analyzing the roots of this phenomenon, its major causes, and outcomes, it is critical to admit the role governments play in cultivating environmental racism. Thus, Clair (2003) states that money and power are two major factors determining the state of the environment and politics related to these concerns. Lobbying interests of various parties, the authorities cover toxic waste, interfere with the National Parks’ work, and give leases on federal lands (Clair, 2003). In most cases, communities of color are affected by such solutions as their interests are disregarded. The adherence to this approach preconditions the further rise of environmental racism and critical deterioration of areas where vulnerable groups live. For instance, the problems of waste and global warming have more significant effects in poor regions, while lands with high income benefit from popularized attempts to improve the quality of air, water, and living conditions (Bullard, 2008). At the same time, speaking about humanity’s future, Lyans (2009) emphasizes that global warming will affect communities differently. When pumping systems can keep the water out of Holland and save it, poor communities in Bangladesh or India might not have such protection. For this reason, the further deterioration of the environment will have not the same impacts on people developing to various social groups, which proves the critical importance of the idea of environmental racism. This injustice becomes a severe problem affecting the globe and demanding an effective solution.
The problem of unequal exposure to environmental risks can be considered from various angles. For instance, Aldo Leopold’s concept of land ethic can help to cultivate positive change regarding the problem mentioned above. The need for a new ethic to deal with human’s relation to land, animals, and plants rises from the current state of the environment and becomes a possible way to decrease adverse outcomes (Leopold, 1986). One of the paradigm’s assumptions is the necessity to enlarge boundaries of communities to include soils, waters, plants, and all animals residing here to ensure the positive change in the attitude of governments to it (Leopold, 1986). In other words, the economics-based, libertarian, or ecologically based land ethics are not relevant as they do not include all actors affected by the change and activity (Leopold, 1986). The reconsideration of the attitude to affecting nature can help to manage environmental racism as it will presuppose analysis of local communities’ interests to avoid harming them.
Cogitating about the problem, it is also essential to consider the motifs for its increased topicality. The need to resolve the issue and eliminate the causes of environmental racism comes from the inevitability of negative outcomes in case the question remains disregarded. Lyans (2009) shows that global warming can trigger multiple disasters such as droughts, floods, and superstorms, followed by disastrous and devastating outcomes for people belonging to communities with low protection or living in areas affected by environmental racism. For this reason, the central motif for changing the existing land ethics and implementing a practical solution is the provision of equal living conditions for individuals to protect them from waste, pollution, and other hazards. Additionally, regarding the dominance of humanistic values peculiar to contemporary society, the biased attitude to various groups leading to the emergence of multiple health issues and threats is unacceptable and should be reconsidered.
Environmental racism also lays the ground for the discussion of the values that are associated with the problem. Speaking about the role of government, Clair (2003) states that the current situation reflects the absence of humanistic or democratic values, as the majority of decisions accepted by the authorities are motivated by money and power. It means that there is a corrupted system of values reflecting the desire to preserve dominant positions at the cost of vulnerable populations whose interests are not lobbied. Moreover, the idea of benefit and monetary value of some solutions prevail over the need to ensure that all individuals are provided with similar conditions for their life and development.
Under these conditions, the elimination of environmental racism presupposes the shift to another system of values. First, as stated above, Leopold’s idea of land ethics should become the major framework for establishing cooperation between people and their relations with the environment. The shift to this system of values presupposes the increased attention to the life of every individual, attempts to preserve the current state of nature or improve it, and activities aimed at protecting the appropriate conditions of ecosystems where people live (Leopold, 1986). The given alteration demands a return to traditional humanistic and democratic values, including the priority of human life, the duty to protect people, and justice.
Today, every life’s outstanding importance is the dominant idea taken as the basis for decision making. However, speaking about environmental racism, governments might have other factors affecting their actions (Clair, 2003). Under these conditions, it is critical to restore human life’s fundamental role and view it as the basic value that should be taken into account when planning new strategies related to pollution, waste, and climate control. At the same time, Socrates’ idea of civic duty can also be applied to the discussed problem. It presupposes that a community should focus its activities on creating conditions beneficial for citizens, and it becomes the duty of all individuals belonging to a group (Hackett, 2016). From this perspective, the authorities’ oath can be linked to Socrates’ ideas and presuppose avoiding causing harm to societies.
Finally, there is a critical need for social justice as a way to avoid unfair practices. As stated above, environmental racism emergences because of the unjust and racialized approach to working with communities. Under these conditions, the change in the methods and the employment of the same practices for all groups will help to resolve the problem and eliminate the major causes for the emergence of this sort of racism (Clair, 2003). Governments should pursue the interests of all citizens instead of trying to protect companies and corporations that try to generate additional benefits.
Altogether, environmental racism is one of the major problems of contemporary society. It presupposes disproportional exposure to hazards as a result of some governmental decisions. Mainly communities consisting of minorities, different ethical groups, and poor regions suffer from it. The adherence to this practice introduces additional risks as if the situation worsens, people living in such areas will be the first to suffer from results. The threat of adverse effects becomes higher every day, and further cultivation of environmental racism can make the negative change inevitable. That is why there is a need to alter existing values and implement the land ethics’ central concepts to find an appropriate solution.
References
Bullard, R. (2008). Environmental justice in the 21st century. University of Wisconsin Oshkosh.
Clair, J. (2003). Been brown so long, it looked like green to me: The politics of nature. Common Courage Press.
Hackett, W. (2016). Socrates: The best of Socrates. The founding philosophies of ethics, virtues & life (3rd ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Leopold, A. (1986). A Sand County almanac. Ballantine Books.
Lynas, M. (2009). Six degrees: Our future on a hotter planet. Fourth Estate.