Search results

This chapter chronicles some of the early years of the author growing up in the racially segregated South Alabama and its influence on his thinking about race, environment, social equity, and government responsibility and his journey to becoming an environmental sociologist, scholar, and activist. Using an environmental justice paradigm, he uncovers the underlying assumptions that contribute to and produce unequal protection. The environmental justice paradigm provides a useful framework for examining and explaining the spatial relation between the health of marginalized populations and their built and natural environment, and government response to natural and man-made disasters in African American communities. Clearly, people of color communities have borne a disproportionate burden and have received differential treatment from government in its response to health threats such as childhood lead poisoning, toxic waste and contamination, industrial accidents, hurricanes, floods and related weather-related disasters, and a host of other man-made disasters. The chapter brings to the surface the ethical and political questions of “who gets what, why, and how much” and why some communities get left behind before and after disasters strike.

This article takes an autobiographical approach in describing the evolution of the equity and environmental justice debate. The intent is not only to provide a historical approach in identifying the emerging research and policy questions, but also to describe the author's own scholarly growth in studying them.

To date, the limited level of attention devoted to equity issues has perhaps been clearest in work done outside of the social sciences, but in our view, even social science work on environmental issues has devoted too little attention to the importance of equity and inequality. In an chapter that proved particularly influential in spelling out approaches for analyzing relationships between society and environment, for example, Dunlap and Catton (1983); see also Dunlap (1993) noted the importance of recognizing three “analytically distinguishable functions” of the biophysical environment, reflecting the fact that humans tend to use the environment as (1) a dwelling place, (2) a source of supplies, and (3) a repository for wastes. The typology has been influential in part because it is so simple and so useful. In addition, as noted in later work by Dunlap (1993) and Dunlap and Catton (2002), for example, one factor behind rising awareness of environmental problems, particularly in the context of the social problems literature, is that these three functions tend to be incompatible with one another. In present-day homes, for example, we tend to separate bathrooms from bedrooms from eating places, and more broadly, across many of the world's cultures, the pressure to devote more and more of the finite space available to one such function – for example, waste disposal – is in fact increasingly running into competing demands to use the same spaces for resource supplies or living spaces.

Purpose – Emissions trading is often heralded as an efficient approach to environmental regulation. In the mid-90s Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), a Los Angeles-based advocacy organization, raised concerns that emissions trading in the South Coast Air Basin, the most polluted region in Southern California, would result in environmental injustice. The organizations concerns received mixed responses from regulators. Historical analysis is used to assess the clash between emissions trading and environmental justice (EJ).

Methodology/approach – Emissions trading and EJ arose side by side between the 1960s and the 1990s, yet they disagree on how to clean the air. Historical analysis of legal documents, presidential addresses, letters, working papers, reports, and the like offers a better understanding of the development of emissions trading and EJ, and their intersection in environmental policy.

Findings – Emissions trading was grafted onto Clean Air Act policies not inherently designed for their incorporation. As a result, emissions trading came into direct philosophical opposition with EJ as political pressures calling for both economically efficient antiregulatory-ism and environmental equity forced their intersection. Formally, regional and national government accepted EJ as part of law. However, in principle, emissions trading undermined this acceptance. As a result, CBE could not easily win or explicitly lose its battle against emissions trading.

Originality/value of paper – Previous work on the relationship between emissions trading and EJ tend to focus on legal analysis and normative implications of emissions trading. Putting emissions trading and environment justice into historical perspective helps to illuminate larger questions about EJ activism and policy. Also, as California, the United States, and Europe turn to emissions trading to combat not only air pollution but also climate change, important lessons can be learned from the histories and collision of emissions trading and EJ.

The text introduces the theory of integrating territorial identity into the discourse on sustainability. It stresses the importance of considering for each place the complex interaction among social, cultural, political, historical, architectural, biophysical, geological, and hydrographic factors in shaping sustainable development trajectories. Sustainable development must certainly involve environmental, social, and economic aspects in an integrated manner, but it must be “territorially desirable” in the meantime. This vision represents a fundamental paradigm for a new way of approaching the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the path to sustainability. The proposed approach acknowledges that the way of achieving SDGs cannot be implemented without any differences worldwide. Instead, it must account for the specificities of each area and territory and the compatibility of actions with the identity of places.

Profiles the development of the project IWW/Earth First Local 1, a group which brought loggers and environmentalists together in an attempt to combine labour and ecology issues. Describes anarchosyndicalist ideas that formed the basis of this alliance, suggesting that these have some merit for present day ecologists. Considers the common ground shared by labour and ecology movements and presents some learnings from the project for future mainstream environmental policies.

Purpose – State and national environmental justice (EJ) programs have expanded in recent years to address new risks and challenges. Several programs including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Justice Small Grants (EJSG) program have helped to facilitate this growth. Since 1994, more than 1,000 small grants have been awarded through the EJSG to support communities in developing solutions to local environmental and public health problems. This chapter evaluates the collective impact of these investments.

Design/methodology/approach – Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map the locations of EJSG funds relative to data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), this chapter addresses two main questions. First, are grants being awarded to the types of communities (low-income, minority areas facing major environmental hazards) intended to be served by the program? Second, have there been any significant environmental changes in EJSG areas since the start of the program?

Findings – Results of county-level spatial analysis reveal that EJ grants are only in part being awarded to minority or low-income counties facing higher than the national average TRI releases and that average toxic releases have increased significantly in EJSG counties in some EPA regions relative to non-EJSG counties.

Originality/value – These results and the novel application of mapping methods to tracking small grants allocations highlight the need for systematic EJ program evaluation and coordination.