What is environmental racism? Much of what we understand from an academic viewpoint is because of the groundbreaking work of Robert Bullard.

Bullard talks about internal colonialism and white racism. If you think about it, in many ways we have internal colonies in the United States. Blacks were often isolated in inner city areas, socially and economically, with few options for leaving, during the era of suburbanization. Native Americans and tribal reservations provide an even more stark example. Internal colonies as Bullard says have existed for the sole purpose of enriching, in one form or another, the ‘colonizer,’ the consequence being to maintain the economic dependency of the ‘colonized.’

5 colonizing processes:

1. enter the ‘host’ society involuntarily;
2. nature culture is destroyed;
3. white-dominated bureaucracies impose restrictions from which whites are exempt;’
4. dominant group uses institutionalized racism to justify its actions (the market);
5. dual labor market emerges

As Bullard notes, whites receive benefits from racism; people of color bear the costs. Race also helps explain the likelihood of exposure to environmental and health risks, and accessibility to health care (check out the statistics on p. 99). Income and class alone are not enough to account for differences in exposure to toxins. Yes, minorities are more likely to be poor, but if one focuses only on people of the same income class, minorities are disproportionately affected versus whites.

In 1990 . . . 437 of 3,109 U.S. counties and independent municipalities failed to meet at least one of the EPA ambient air quality standards:

Hispanic population distribution may have changed over time, but theory would suggest a higher likelihood of exposure to environmental risks for this population. In any case, the data show that non-whites are more likely to live in these areas.

One of the reasons, according to Bullard, involves race-based decision-making. Institutions provide an example of this, with respect to education, housing, employment, criminal justice, police protection, land use (zoning boards), environmental regulations, industrial facility siting, paths of freeways, etc. There is strong evidence that blacks are discriminated against. Robert Moses was one of the architects of modern New York City. His notes and memoirs and those who knew him suggest that his use of low-clearance bridges was a very conscious effort to keep blacks, who were more likely to be dependent on public transportation (i.e., buses), from using the beaches on Long Island. The buses were too tall to clear the low bridges.

Institutional discrimination explains part but not all of the environmental racist element. Look at it this way: If a toxic waste dump is to be sited, or a landfill, or a heavily polluting industry, where is it most likely to go if nobody wants it? Put another way, which communities and neighborhoods among the NIMBYs (‘not-in-my-back-yard) will be best able to defend themselves? Who will have the education to know the risks, who may have more political connections, more money to hire lawyers or more professionals willing to contribute their time? Non-whites have less social and political power. The path of least resistance.

That is not to say that poor white communities fare well in distancing themselves from environmental hazards. But Bullard’s research showed how poor communities of color were more statistically likely to live near or with such hazards than were poor, predominantly white communities.

Globalization, free trade model, maquiladoras

The process works on an international level, too. The North American Free Trade Agreement spurred development of factories along the U.S.-Mexican border. Labor was cheaper, and environmental regulations lax or non-existent. People were either drawn to cities by the lure of factory employment, or pushed from depressed rural areas. The result was out-of-control and unplanned urban growth, overcrowding, infrastructure breakdown, coupled with inadequate government oversight. It may not always be intentional, but the result is that the poorest face daily risks in the environment, many of which they may not be aware.

Race seems to matter a great deal with respect to:

1. air pollution
2. contaminated fish consumption
3. location of municipal landfills and incinerators
4. abandoned toxic waste dumps (superfund priority lists?)
5. lead poisoning
6. dirty work (environmental job blackmail)

On an exam, I’d probably ask you to explain to me why race matters with the above issues–can you describe how it actually would work on the ground? You need to think about the statistical argument Bullard posits.

Bullard ends by asking why it’s taken so long for mainstream environmentalist movements to take up the cause of environmental justice. Any thoughts? However, it is becoming an important legal concept.