11/24/08ESPP-781 How should environmental risks and benefits be distributed? From questions of which nature to for whose benefit (or harm) Two kinds of distributive questions –Are burdens being fairly distributed? –Are benefits being fairly distributed? Two scales of politics –Mainly national/local; partly international –Mainly international/global

11/24/08ESPP-782 Two Linked Concepts: Justice and Equity Environmental justice (person-centered ) –focus on rights –focus on communities at risk –remedying or mitigating physical risks and harms Environmental equity (resource-centered) –focus on the allocation of resources –among disadvantaged groups (indigenous peoples) –across regions (neo-colonialism)

11/24/08ESPP-783 Basis for “EJ” and “EE” claims Unfair risk distribution –US domestic class and SES (socioeconomic status) matter risks cluster in poor and minority communities downward spiral –International unequal vulnerability to climate change, for example Unfair resource allocation “common property of humankind” (ocean beds, rainforests, biodiversity) not equally shared

11/24/08ESPP-784 Origins of EJ: “Dumping in Dixie” I got hooked. I started connecting the dots in terms of housing, residential patterns, patterns of land use, where highways go, where transportation routes go, and how economic-development decisions are made. It was very clear that people who were making decisions -- county commissioners or industrial boards or city councils -- were not the same people who were "hosting" these facilities in their communities. Without a doubt, it was a form of apartheid where whites were making decisions and black people and brown people and people of color, including Native Americans on reservations, had no seat at the table.

11/24/08ESPP-785 Framing the EJ Problem: Risk (natural) vs. Injustice (social) “MATTER OUT OF PLACE” VISIBLE DIRT, PLUMES, DEPOSITS HUMAN-MADE EMISSIONS HARMFUL CONCENTRATIONS WASTED RESOURCES MATTER UNFAIRLY PLACED OVERLAPPING BURDENS (ECONOMIC/ ENVIRONMENTAL) SOCIALLY AMPLIFIED RISKS COSTS WITHOUT BENEFITS LACK OF DUE PROCESS

11/24/08ESPP-786 Definition Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

11/24/08ESPP-787 Environmental Justice in US Policy Executive Order 12898, February, 1994 (issued by President Clinton) Authority: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Mandate: Each Federal agency shall ensure that all programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin Instrument: Agency-wide environmental justice strategy to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations

11/24/08ESPP-788 Implementing Environmental Justice Federal role (e.g., EPA, Interagency Working Group) Analytic procedures: parallels with EIS New forms of participation –Community-level concerns about risk Novel methodologies and expert conflicts –How do you measure discrepant impacts? –Cause-effect relations?

11/24/08ESPP-789 Environmental Equity: Major Challenges Geographic inequity - Unequal distribution of environmental costs, benefits, and resources among neighborhoods, communities, regions, and nations. Procedural inequity - Unfairness or lack of uniformity in rules, regulations, evaluation criteria. Political inequity - Imbalance of power and de facto racism in environmental policies and decisions.

11/24/08ESPP-7810 Asymmetries of Global Environmental Risk Who produces, who assesses, and who experiences (a) benefits, (b) burdens? –Hazardous wastes –Pharmaceuticals (e.g., vaccines, anti-depressants) –Nuclear power –GM crops and foods –Cars –Climate change –Weapons (of mass destruction)

11/24/08ESPP-7811 Some Distributive Questions Why not: Export hazardous wastes to poorer countries, where people die sooner anyway? Give unemployed people jobs in risky industries? Dispose of pollutants in places where there is less pollution? Put cheaper lives at greater risk than more expensive ones?