What is Environmental Justice, and How is it Relevant to Understanding Peoples Relationships - Assignment Example

Environmental Justice QUESTION: 1. What is environmental justice, and how is it relevant to understanding people’s relationships with each other and their environment both within and between countries. Introduction Environmental justice is the concept of involving all people fairly and meaningfully regardless of their income status, color, race or national origin. This is with respect to environmental law development, its implementation and development as well as regulations and policies of these environmental laws. Environmental injustice according to Sze and London (2008) and Schlosberg (2004) is where environmental hazards affect certain groups unequally. Socially disadvantaged groups are exposed to carry the risky burden and cannot participate publicly in decision making. There are environmental justice communities usually known as those who have been left out of decision-making process and policy setting of the environment, those that earn low income or are minorities, those that are affected by unequal environmental hazards, and those that experience unequal implementation of practices, regulations, activities and requirements of the environment in their dwelling. The determination of the environmental justice is to deal with these issues of environmental protection. Environmental justice dwells on the effects of environmental hazards on certain populations or communities. Human activities result into environmental harms like temporary or permanent environmental degradation which include pollution of soil, water and air, too much noise and taking of fauna and flora illegally. People have the right to an environment free from harms in which they can live and work comfortably. This concept also believes that environmental harms can cause adverse problems to people unequally. Environmental Injustice between Nations The continuing global debate concerns whose responsibility is to address climate change as opposing perception of environmental justice threatens the likelihood of having a lasting agreement. Poor or developing countries fear the limitation to grow their economy as well as meet the needs of the citizens, while industralised and powerful nations USA included refuse to cut down on their excess waste unless it cuts across even to the poor nations (Anand 62). Developing countries are highly affected by the disasters related to climate including storms, floods and droughts due to their geographical locations even though sixty percent of emissions of greenhouse are done by industrialised countries (Agarwal & Narain 18). There is even inequality in negotiating global climate agreements between developing and industralised countries. Cooperative efforts are broken by global inequality where trust conditions and beliefs or developing countries are drained while ‘fair’ solutions concepts are promoted. There is development of unequal climate measures and unequal participations in environmental regimes at an international (Roberts et al. 25) Dumping of Wastes to Developing Countries The major issue of environmental justice is the movement and disposal of hazardous wastes over the past 20 years. Hazardous waste of 400 millionmetric tons was estimated to have been generated all over the world in 1990. Organization for ECONOMIC Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries are said to have generated over ninety percent of this waste. Industrialised countries are day by day lacking facilities to dispose hazardous waste, thereby targeting less developed countries as dumping grounds (Lipman, 14). The less developed countries do not have capacity to deal with the wastes and they feel the disproportionate burden. On a global scale, the practice of dumping hazardous waste to less developed countries by industralised countries is known as environmental racism or environmental injustice. In the late 1980’s an international attention was gained concerning disposal of hazardous waste in developing countries which resulted in environmental problems. Several incidents took place where it was reported that dumping was done in Africa. The illegal dumping in Nigeria was one of the early cases that took place. A person working in Nigeria of Italian origin received a license to import a product but substituted it with many tonnes of waste that are highly radioactive and toxic. Polychlorinated biphenyls of about 150 tons were imported and some of them stored at Koko site. The drums were leaking and seemed damaged, and those packing them for retransportation obtained severe chemical burns. The workers were taken to the hospital for treatment and one of them became paralysed. Though he waste was finally removed from the site, a radius of 500 metre of land was deemed unsafe and it brought concerns of ground and surface water contamination (Washington et al. 42). Guinea-Bissau was offered a contract of $600 million dollars in 1988to distribute or dispose off toxic wastes of 15 million tons within a period of five years. However, due to the concern of the public within Guinea-Bissau the contract was not applied. Beside this, some other countries like Sierra Leone, Guinea, Haiti and Namibia have faced such proposed arrangements in the 1980’s. These concerns of hazardous waste have been known internationally, though the problem is more to Africa. It has been reported that many dumping incidents are taking place in developing countries throughout the world (Banuri &Sagar 509) Reasons for dumping wastes to developing countries. The former vice present and chief economist of the World Bank Lawrence Summer was the number one person encouraging exporting hazardous waste to developing countries. The reason given for choosing developing countries is because of economic sense. Summers emphasized that dumping of toxic waste should be done in the country with the lowest cost. In the long run the World Bank and Summers have withdrawn these stations, but it is still unquestionable with the economic incentives of dumping wastes in developing countries (Agarwal et al. 21). Dangers of disposing hazardous waste unsoundly have been made aware in industrialised countries, inviting the introduction hard-lined safety and environmental measures. This has made it extremely costly to dispose of hazardous waste. According to a study in the end 1980’s the cost of disposing one ton of hazardous wastes was between 100 and 2,000 US dollars in industralised countries while the cost of disposing the same amount of hazardous waste was between 2.50 and 50 dollars in Africa (Anand 63). This shows how environmental laws and standards are not strong in Africa and lack of information on dangers involved is lacking among the public which lowers the level of public opposition. If developing countries don’t put environmental regulations then developing countries will continue disposing hazardous waste in them as the least expensive and resistance way (64). Environmental Justice in Australia The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 confirmed living in a world free from environmental degradation and toxic pollution as a basic human right. This recognition is apparent in Australian community campaigns against industrial smelters, lead contamination, and effects of hazardous waste, pesticides and contaminated land. Australia’s environmental injustice is in three categories: (a) geographic inequity where the burden of industrial pollution is imposed on certain areas while they have few benefits, (b) procedural inequity where the concerns of residents are ignored or the community is not recognized as a stakeholder, and (c) social inequity where communities that are powerless become sacrificial lambs for decisions made that lead to environment degradation (Lloyd-Smith & Bell, 2003). According to Brulle and Pellow (2006), environmental pollution has been identified by public health researchers as a contributor to health inequities. Air pollution has adverse effects on major cities according to Australia study reviews (Howie, et al., 2005). Braveman (2006) asserts that disadvantaged social groups like women, residents of areas with polluting industries, and ethnic, racial or poor minorities are in a higher position to experience greater health risks. Many rural communities in Australian are disadvantaged due to their low income levels, lack of access to services, lack of political influence or electoral power. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics of 2006, residents of rural upper Hunter have a weekly income of 200 dollars which is less than the average Australian and earn from farming cattle, grain and sheep. A. Upper Hunter, NSW, Australia The main issue of environmental injustice in Australia is with the case of Upper Hunter located in New South Wales in the Southeast of Australia. Intense transformation of the environment has taken place in the Upper Hunter due to the expansion of coal mining. The largest producing area of coal in NSW is Hunter Coalfield (Dalton 3). Open cut mining was the most popular and the easiest way of accessing coal seams. This method of coal mining involved blasting and drilling, loaders, draglines, conveyor belts, power shovels, dumpers and bucket wheel excavators which remove large materials to be able to access coal depots. Massive waste were discharged in the process as well as release of particulate matter into the air resulting from loading, transportation, size reduction, stockpiling, and waste removal (Anvil Hill Alliance 2006). Besides this, Redbank Power Stations as well as CARMA also contributed to pollution in the area. The inhaled particles caused increased premature death, asthma aggravation, hospital admissions and respiratory symptoms. People with heart disease or asthma as well as children and the elderly were at the highest risk. Coal emissions steadily rose from 37,000 tonnes in 2002 to 53,000 tonnes in 2009 according to the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). In addition, electricity generators emitted toxic metals and their compounds including zinc, lead, nickel, antimony, among others into the air. NPI continues to assert that, the issue of inequality is seen when comparing Musewellbrook’s 18,000 tons and Shires of Singleton at Upper Hunter with 39,000 tons. Their neighbours Maitland and Lower Hunter had 260 tonnes and 920 tonnes respectively, they had few open cut mines and no power stations. Air pollution concerns had been raised by residents in the worst affected places of Upper Hunter. These complaints have risen to 2006 from 2002 by a third with the leading percentage of complaints directed towards air pollution followed by water pollution. According to Albrecht et al. (2006), air pollution in the area was associated with health problems like skin complaints, pneumoconiosis, stress, depression, anxiety, breathing difficulties and headaches. A common concern was the future implications of health putting in mind that the mining and combustion of coal continued to expand in the Upper Hunter. Residents had for the past twenty years tried to get the authorities attention on the matter but they had repeatedly been ignored. Residents were been denied a health study and monitoring in their area by authorities’ excuse of methodological and technical barriers. Political economic interests in Upper Hunter overshadowed the health and environmental concerns. This increased the health inequity and environmental injustice in the area. Issues of governments which include decisions regarding supervising, regulation and regulation of both mining and combustion of coal in the area discriminated the residents exposed to health risks. Residents were forced to involve themselves in the fields of mass media, green politics and local government to fix the problem while the companies remain in a defensive position. B. Bellevue The issue of Bellevue is about the dumping of hazardous waste and the biggest chemical fire that took place in Australia. Bellevue consists of a large minority group that earns low income, low housing prices, and poor education. Elderly immigrants from East European as well as blue-collar workers live in this area. An oil re-refinery that is no longer in used dumped toxic acid in a large pit (Omex) in the area. This contamination affected Bellevue residents for around fifty years. Besides that there was hazardous facility of Waste Control Pty. Ltd that later caused a chemical fire and further contaminated the area (Annemarie and Spicket 62). Failure to learn from past mistakes by decision makers was the greatest feature in both cases, putting in mind that the Omex saga took place first. If decision makers could have taken the Omex saga seriously they would have prevented the Waste Control Pty. Ltd chemical fire. The oil refinery was relocated to Bellevue in 1954 forming the beginning of Bellevue residents struggle against its environmental effects. The local government consulted with a private town planner for siting of the refinery but leaving out the residents. The Western Oil Refinery which was later called Omex was given an operation license with a condition that it will not dump its waste in the clayhole within it. However, Omex broke the agreement and started dumping contaminated waste in the clayhole. For many years there was a flow of residents’ complaints into the oil refinery, politicians lobbied, protests and petitions raised acknowledging the environmental disadvantage of the refinery. The open clay storage caused continuous odour emissions. The Department of Conservation and Environment official intervened and suggested the relocation of the refinery but the company preferred to have pollution in Bellevue in exchange of cheap supply of recycled oil for economic benefit of the country. The oil company lawyers argued that it was better for few people to suffer but majority to benefit. Dense black toxic clouds deposited residues and ah on surrounding properties like houses, which when tested were found to high lead levels and polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the soil. Though the oil refinery closed and relocated due to residents’ pressure, the contaminated waste oil still remained in the pit which was the size of a soccer pitch. The authorities heard the residents’ complaints regarding this but they finally forgot (Howie et al. 25) The residents formed Bellevue Action Group (BAG) a campaign for cleaning up the waste from the pit and raised money for the same. However, digging the waste filled odour fumes in air which affected the residents. Some were rushed to hospital while others contracted skin rashes. During clean up those who were well off relocated to other areas but the poor remained to suffer the effects. However, the experience brought with it some positive results. The communities demanded information on contaminated sites and their maps which have been availed to them online. Bellevue residents became aware of toxic waste risks and could criticize any risk assessment assurance. Another issue of Bellevue was the Waste Control Pty Company that carried out solvent recycling business. Its hazardous liquids spilled at the site, workers faced bad work conditions and drums leaked. The spilled overflowed from the site to the road and this together with spills affected the residents and businesses, which raised their concerns. February 15, 2001 there was a series of massive explosions in Waste Control Pty Company at 10.45 PM awakening the residents (Annemarie and Spicket 62). Windows were shaken the smoke filled the sky yet the residents had no idea of what caused the fire. However, with news from the media it seemed like other television viewers knew better about Waste Control chemical fire that residents of Bellevue. The facility of waste control blew into flames rocking the area with massive explosions within few minutes. The city’s Swan River was filled with toxic smoke particulate. Instead of using foam to put out the fire, firefighters used water which washed heavy metals and chemical from the site into personal properties and down the road. Contaminated water ran down to damp lands behind Bellevue Primary School and near Helena River (Brown 2001). After the fire was put out chemical fumes stench filled the area for days. Government struggled to deal with the increased contamination while health authorities agreed to the fact that attempts to evacuate people that night failed. Firefighters without protection contracted serious health problems including high chemical levels in their systems. While this went on residents still were not given any information regarding the incident. School children who had used the buses that were contaminated with chemicals complained of headaches. Ground water was contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Community activities pushed for an inquiry to take place to investigate the fire and its consequences. Yet the only thing the Parliamentary inquiry could say was that the residents were lucky the mercury was not in the fire (Economics and Industry Standing Committee 2002). After 18 months since the fire incident there was an establishment of a community consultative committee. Still there were questions on what basis the planning agency permitted the dangerous facility to be sited in Bellevue, why didn’t the government revoke the license of Waste Control when they were aware of their unsafe operation, why the government hesitated to conduct an air monitoring test after weeks of fire, whey health officials did not bother to inform the residents during the fire incidents especially about taking precautions and why the government officials denied the presence of risk basing on the risk assessment even when in real sense there was serious contamination (Government of Western Australia 2002). Conclusion Environmental justice is a concept that treats all people equally regardless of their citizenship, race, color, or income status in regards to environmental benefits and risks. Lack of environmental justice has been revealed between nations where industrialised nations dump hazardous wastes to developing countries by taking advantage of their lack of information on the same as well as their low economy. In Australia environmental injustice has been on the rise for many years with discussed case of Upper Hunter and Bellevue. Both Upper Hunter and Bellevue campaigned against the resource disparities and informational inequities that was parent in toxic disputes. Bellevue faced hazardous waste dumping and the outburst bust of the biggest chemical fire ever experienced in Australia. Upper Hunter on the other hand complained of the hazardous coal mining company that polluted their area. In both cases the political regime ignored their issues, denied them information they needed and delayed in responding to the situation until disaster came. The government agencies at some point pointed out that it was better for a small group to suffer for the sake of benefiting the larger group. To achieve environmental justice in the suggested cases and to create good relationships between people and nations, there is need for evaluatin risk and hazards before licensing a plant in an area, consultation with expert and communication with the residents who have a right to information access and the right to know. It does not matter if there are minority groups in certain areas for they still have a right to be consulted, a right to know and a right to work, live and play in a healthy environment. Works Cited Agarwal, A., Narain, S. Global Warming in an Unequal World. Centre for Science and Environment, 1991. Agarwal, A., Narain, S., Sharma, A. and Imchen, A. Green Politics: Global Environmental Negotiation. Centre for Science and Environment, 2001. Agyeman, J., Evans, R and Bullard, D., Robert. Sustainability, Environmental Justice and Equity. Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2003 Anand, R. “International Environmental Justice: A North-South Dimension”. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004. Annemarie de vos and Spickett, T., J. “The Bellevue (WA) Chemical Fire 2001: An Environmental Health Management Review”. Environmental Health 5.2 (2005): 62. Print Anvil Hill Alliance. Save Anvil Hill Stop Runaway Climate Change: The Campaign to Stop the Proposed Anvil Hill Open Cut Coal Mine in the Hunter Valley, May2006. Albrecht, G., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N and Sartore, G. Solastalgia: The Distress Caused by Environmental Change. Presented at: RANZCP Social and Cultural Psychiatry Conference: Creating Futures. Cairns, September 2006. Banuri, T., Sagar, A. “In fairness to current generations: lost voices in the climate debate”. Energy Policy 27.9 (1999) 509–514. Brown, R. “Submission to Economics and Industry Standing Committee—Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry”. Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia, 27 July 2001. Brulle, R. J and Pellow D. N. “Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities”. Annual Review of Public Health 27 (2006) 103-24. Dalton, C. 2003. “Environmental Health Concerns in the Hunter: National Clear Air Conference”. Linking Air Pollution Science, Policy and Management, (2003) 1-6. Economics and Industry Standing Committee. “Bellevue Hazardous Waste Fire Inquiry”. Government of Western Australia 2.2 (2002). Print. Government of Western Australia. Department of Environmental Protection, Waste Control Groundwater Monitoring Results, August 2002. Howie, J., Tong, S., Verrall, K., Gerber, R and Wolff, R. “Air pollution and cardiopulmonary diseases in Australia: A review of epidemiological evidence”. Environmental Health 5 (2005)23-36. Lipman, Zada. Trade in Hazardous Waste: Environmental Justice versus Economic Growth. Macquarie University, 2011 Lloyd-Smith, E., Mariann and Bell Lee. “Toxic Disputes and the Rise of Environmental Justice in Australia”. Int J Occup Environ Health 9.1 (2003) 11. Print. Roberts, J., Timmons and Parks, C., Bradley. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy. MIT Press, 2006 Schlosberg, D. “Reconceiving environmental injustice: Global movements and political theories”. Environmental Politics 13 (2004) 517-40. Sze, J and London, J. K. “Environmental justice at the crossroads”. Sociology Compass 2 (2008) 1331-54. Washington, S., Hood, Goodall, Heather and Rosier, C., Paul. Echoes from the Poisoned Well: Global Memories of Environmental Injustice. Lexington Books, 2006 Read More

There is even inequality in negotiating global climate agreements between developing and industralised countries. Cooperative efforts are broken by global inequality where trust conditions and beliefs or developing countries are drained while ‘fair’ solutions concepts are promoted. There is development of unequal climate measures and unequal participations in environmental regimes at an international (Roberts et al. 25) Dumping of Wastes to Developing Countries The major issue of environmental justice is the movement and disposal of hazardous wastes over the past 20 years.

Hazardous waste of 400 millionmetric tons was estimated to have been generated all over the world in 1990. Organization for ECONOMIC Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries are said to have generated over ninety percent of this waste. Industrialised countries are day by day lacking facilities to dispose hazardous waste, thereby targeting less developed countries as dumping grounds (Lipman, 14). The less developed countries do not have capacity to deal with the wastes and they feel the disproportionate burden.

On a global scale, the practice of dumping hazardous waste to less developed countries by industralised countries is known as environmental racism or environmental injustice. In the late 1980’s an international attention was gained concerning disposal of hazardous waste in developing countries which resulted in environmental problems. Several incidents took place where it was reported that dumping was done in Africa. The illegal dumping in Nigeria was one of the early cases that took place.

A person working in Nigeria of Italian origin received a license to import a product but substituted it with many tonnes of waste that are highly radioactive and toxic. Polychlorinated biphenyls of about 150 tons were imported and some of them stored at Koko site. The drums were leaking and seemed damaged, and those packing them for retransportation obtained severe chemical burns. The workers were taken to the hospital for treatment and one of them became paralysed. Though he waste was finally removed from the site, a radius of 500 metre of land was deemed unsafe and it brought concerns of ground and surface water contamination (Washington et al. 42). Guinea-Bissau was offered a contract of $600 million dollars in 1988to distribute or dispose off toxic wastes of 15 million tons within a period of five years.

However, due to the concern of the public within Guinea-Bissau the contract was not applied. Beside this, some other countries like Sierra Leone, Guinea, Haiti and Namibia have faced such proposed arrangements in the 1980’s. These concerns of hazardous waste have been known internationally, though the problem is more to Africa. It has been reported that many dumping incidents are taking place in developing countries throughout the world (Banuri &Sagar 509) Reasons for dumping wastes to developing countries.

The former vice present and chief economist of the World Bank Lawrence Summer was the number one person encouraging exporting hazardous waste to developing countries. The reason given for choosing developing countries is because of economic sense. Summers emphasized that dumping of toxic waste should be done in the country with the lowest cost. In the long run the World Bank and Summers have withdrawn these stations, but it is still unquestionable with the economic incentives of dumping wastes in developing countries (Agarwal et al. 21). Dangers of disposing hazardous waste unsoundly have been made aware in industrialised countries, inviting the introduction hard-lined safety and environmental measures.

This has made it extremely costly to dispose of hazardous waste. According to a study in the end 1980’s the cost of disposing one ton of hazardous wastes was between 100 and 2,000 US dollars in industralised countries while the cost of disposing the same amount of hazardous waste was between 2.50 and 50 dollars in Africa (Anand 63). This shows how environmental laws and standards are not strong in Africa and lack of information on dangers involved is lacking among the public which lowers the level of public opposition.

Read More