Literature

Pursuing "Environmental Justice": The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection

Categories
Published
of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Georgetown University Law Center GEORGETOWN LAW 1993 Pursuing Environmental Justice : The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection Richard J. Lazarus Georgetown University Law
Transcript
Georgetown University Law Center GEORGETOWN LAW 1993 Pursuing Environmental Justice : The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection Richard J. Lazarus Georgetown University Law Center, This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: 87 Nw. U. L. Rev (1993) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Environmental Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications January 2010 Pursuing Environmental Justice : The Distributional Effects of Environmental Protection 87 Nw. U. L. Rev (1993) Richard J. Lazarus Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: Posted with permission of the author Copyright 1993 by Northwestern University. School of Law Northwestern University Law Review Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 87. No.3 PURSUING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE : THE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Richard J. Lazarus * I. INTRODUCTION Environmental protection policy has been almost exclusively concerned with two basic issues during the last several decades: (1) what is an acceptable level of pollution; and (2) what kinds of legal rules would be best suited for reducing pollution to that level. By contrast, policymakers have paid much less attention to the distributional effects, including the potential for distributional inequities, of environmental protection generally. To be sure, scholars have engaged in considerable discussion of how the costs of environmental controls affect particular industries, and how these costs place a disproportionate burden on new versus existing, and large versus small, industrial sources of pollution.! But there has been at best only an ad hoc accounting of how the benefits of environmental protection are spread among groups of persons. And, when the costs of pollution control have been considered, such discussions have been narrowly confined to the economic costs.2 There has been virtually no accounting of how pollution controls redistribute environmental risks among groups Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Thanks are owed to Peter Byrne, Luke Cole, Chris Desan, Barbara Flagg, Michael Gerrard, and Chris Schroeder, and also to Tobie Bernstein, Wendy Brown, Richard Delgado, Rachel Godsil, Arnold Reitze, Douglas Williams, and participants in Northwestern University School of Law's faculty workshop for their comments on earlier drafts, which much improved this Article. Washington University law students Jennifer Sheehan, Christopher Perzan, and Patricia Verga provided valuable research assistance, but most deserving of thanks is Kevin Brown, Class of 1992, who taught me that this was a topic warranting greater academic inquiry.! See Bruce A. Ackerman & Richard B. Stewart, Reforming Environmental Law, 37 STAN. L. REv. 1333, (1985); B. Peter Pashigian, The Effect of Environmental Regulation on Optimal Plant Size and Factor Shares, 27 J.L. & EcON. 1 (1984); Peter Huber, The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation, 69 VA. L. REv (1983); WILLIAM TUCKER, PROGRESS AND PRIVILEGE: AMERICA IN THE AGE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM (1982) (author contends that environmentalism has unwittingly aided big business at the expense of small business and has inappropriately discounted the advantages of human process); Keith Schneider, Rules Forcing Towns to Pick Big New Dumps or Big Costs, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 6, 1992, at AI; but see Daniel A. Farber & Phillip P. Frickey, The Jurisprudence of Public Choice, 65 TEx. L. REv. 873, (1987) (questioning substantiality of evidence that environmental laws favor larger plants). 2 See infra note HeinOnline Nw. U. L. Rev NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW of persons, thereby imposing a cost on some for the benefit of others. 3 The 1970s marked the heyday of the modem environmental era. 4 Earth Day in 1970 caught the imagination of a nation seeking consensus in the midst of the internal conflict engendered by the Vietnam war. Largely ignored in the celebration that accompanied the passage of a series of ambitious environmental protection laws during this time were those distinct voices within minority communities that questioned the value of environmentalism to their communities. They did not share in the national consensus that these new laws marked a significant movement towards a more socially progressive era. Some minority leaders described environmentalism as irrelevant at best and, at worst, a deliberate attempt by a bigoted and selfish white middle-class society to perpetuate its own values and protect its own life style at the expense of the poor and the underprivileged. 5 Environmentalists were seen as ignoring both the urban environment and the needs of the poor in favor of seeking governmental assistance to avoid the unpleasant externalities of the very system from which they themselves have already benefitted so extensively. 6 As one commentator described, environmentalists would prefer more wilderness... for a more secure enclave in nature from the restlessness of history and the demands of the poor. 7 A prominent 3 One notable exception in the context of environmental land use regulation is DANIEL R. MANDELKER, ENVIRONMENT AND EQUITY: A REGULATORY CHALLENGE (1981). 4 President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No , 83 Stat. 445 (codified at 42 U.S.C a (1988» on January 1, 1970, and Congress followed soon afterwards by passing the Clean Air Act of 1970, Pub. L. No , 84 Stat (current version at 42 U.S.C , , (1988», the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No , 86 Stat. 47 (omitted as superseded by 33 U.S.C (1988», the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No , 87 Stat. 884 (codified at 16 U.S.C (1988», the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. No , 89 Stat. 751 (codified at 7 U.S.C y (1988», the Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. No , 90 Stat (1976) (codified at 15 U.S.C (1988», and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, Pub. L. No , 90 Stat (codified at 42 U.S.C k (1988», followed by substantial revisions in 1977 of both the clean air, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No , 91 Stat. 685 (codified at 42 U.S.C (1988», and clean water, Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. No ,91 Stat (codified at 33 U.S.C (1988», legislation. See Richard J. Lazarus, The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal Environmental Law, 54 LAW & CON TEMP. PROBS. 311, (1991). 5 James N. Smith, The Coming of Age of Environmentalism in American Society, in ENVIRON MENTAL QUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN URBAN AMERICA 1 (James N. Smith ed., 1974) [hereinafter ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE]. 6 Peter Marcuse, Conservation for Whom?, in ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND SOCIAL Jus TICE, supra note 5, at 17, 27; see also Charles E. Little, The Double Standard of Open Space, in ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, supra note 5, at 73, 75 ( The logic of our policy seems to rest on this syllogism: inner cities have no greenery; poor people live in inner cites; therefore parks, open space, and wilderness are not necessary for them. City parks budgets shrink, the disenfranchised are barred from suburbia, and National Park tourism policies tend to exclude the non-affluent. ). 7 Rev. Richard Neuhaus, In Defense of People: A Thesis Revisited, in ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL- 788 HeinOnline Nw. U. L. Rev 87:787 (1993) Pursuing Environmental Justice black elected official put it even more bluntly: [T]he nation's concern with the environment has done what George Wallace has been unable to do: distract the nation from the human problems of black and brown Americans. 8 Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the mainstream environmental groups appear to have paid attention to these charges. 9 Quite possibly, this was because such claims were so unsettling and potentially divisive, particularly to the extent that they implicated the welfare of racial minorities. The environmental movement of the 1970s finds much of its structural roots and moral inspiration in the civil rights movement that preceded it.io Hence, for many in the environmental community, the notion that the two social movements could be at odds was very likely too personally obnoxious to be believed or even tolerated. 11 1TY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, supra note 5, at 59, 62 (excerpt from conference presentation of Rev. Neuhaus). 8 Leonard G. Ritt & John M. Ostheimer, Congressional Voting and Ecological Issues, 3 ENVTL. AFF. 459, 465 & n.18 (1974) (quoting The Rise of Anti-Ecology?, TIME, Aug. 3, 1970, at 42 (quoting Richard Hatcher, Mayor of Gary, Indiana)). More recently, Professor Derrick Bell fantasized the possibility that white Americans would agree to the enslaving of all black Americans in exchange for gold to bailout near insolvent federal, state and local governments, chemicals to purify the almost uninhabitable environment, and a safe, affordable nuclear technology to relieve the nation's energy woes. Derrick A. Bell, Racism: A Prophecy for the Year 2000, 42 RUTGERS L. REv. 93, 98 (1989). 9 Greenpeace, U.S.A., is one frequently cited exception. See Safir Ahmed, Seeing Red Over the Green Movement, RIVERFRONT TIMES, Nov. 6-12, 1991, at 10, 11; Norris MacDonald, Environmental Activities in Communities of Color, in ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM: ISSUES AND DILEMMAS 32,34 (Bunyan Bryant & Paul Mohai eds., 1991) [hereinafter ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM]; see also infra pp The environmental movement's prominence in the aftermath of the civil rights movements' successes in the was not mere happenstance. Environmental groups not only adopted organizational structures, civil disobedience approaches, and litigation strategies based on those utilized by civil rights organizations, but also used the rhetorical power of the civil rights movement on behalf of environmental protection. Environmental rights were analogized to civil rights, and parallels were drawn between the emancipation of African-Americans and the emancipation of wildlife, plant life, and nature in general. See generally RODERICK F. NASH, THE RIGHTS OF NATURE 6-7,34-35, ,162-63, (1989) (concept of natural rights of people expanded to support the rights of nature as free from human domination); CASS SUNSTEIN, AFTER THE RIGHTS REVOLUTION 13, 25, (1990) (Bill of Rights in the U.s. Constitution supported the notion that citizens have the right to be protected from pollution); PETER YEAGER, THE LIMITS OF THE LAW: THE PUBLIC REGULA TION OF PRIVATE POLLUTION 107 (1991) (conservationists, like the civil rights activists, relied on the courts to affect change); see also, ELIZABETH DODSON GRAY, WHY THE GREEN NIGGER? RE MYTHING GENESIS 1-8 (1979) (purported hierarchy of man above animals and nature is an illusion); PETER SINGER, ANIMAL LIBERATION 234 (2d ed. 1990) (outlining belief that animals deserve more humane methods of limiting their numbers by reducing fertility rather than by hunting); CHRISTO PHER D. STONE, SHOULD TREES HAVE STANDING? TOWARD LEGAL RIGHTS FOR NATURAL OB JECTS (1974) (heightened awareness of the interplay of humanity and nature as functional parts of a single organism called the planet Earth). II Neuhaus, supra note 7, at 68 (paul Swatek of the Sierra Club describing as reprehensible Rev. John Neuhaus' characterization of environmentalism as elitist and fascist). Other explanations for the lack of attention to these concerns are more practical in nature. Few, if any, of those expres- 789 HeinOnline Nw. U. L. Rev NOR THWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW More recently, however, the number of those suggesting that there may be serious distributional problems in environmental protection policy has significantly increased, and the character of their claims has shifted. Prominent voices in racial minority communities across the country are now forcefully contending that existing environmental protection laws do not adequately reflect minority interests and, in some instances, even perpetuate racially discriminatory policies. 12 For these individuals, the potential for a regressive distribution of the economic costs associated with pollution control is, while often mentioned, not the principal focus of their concerns. Rather, it is the prevalence of hazardous pollutants in the communities where they live and work that draws the brunt of their attention. One shorthand expression for such claims is environmental racism, 13 but environmental justice (or equity ) appears to have emerged as the more politically attractive expression, presumably because its connotation is more positive and, at the same time, less divisive. Until very recently, the legal academic community has paid relatively little attention to these emerging issues of environmental jussing such concerns had ready access to those making policy decisions. Furthermore, it made little sense strategically to risk alienating those within the environmental community, many of whom had historically voiced support for minority concerns. 12 Roberto Suro, Pollution-Weary Minorities Try Civil Rights Tack, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 11, 1993, at AI. The year 1991 witnessed a proliferation of events, the most significant being the convening in October of The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C. Approximately 300 delegates from minority community organizations working on environmental issues attended, as well as an additional 200 participants and observers from state and federal government agencies, academic institutions, and mainstream environmental organizations. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate a dialogue between these community organizations and, even more significantly, to make a strong national statement regarding the seriousness of the problems in the distribution of environmental risks. See Minorities Joining Environmental Movement, Charge ''Environmental Racism at Conference, 22 Env't Rep. (BNA) at 1656 (Nov. I, 1991); Keith Schneider, Minorities Join to Fight Polluting Neighborhoods, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 25, 1991, at A20. During the fall of 1991, the State of New York Assembly held a series of four public hearings around the state on Minorities and the Environment. See MINORITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT: AN EXPLORATION INTO THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND CONDI TIONS ON MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES (1992) (reprinting of hearings transcripts). Finally, even more recently, Representative Henry Waxman, chair of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, held a hearing on February 25, 1992, on environmental justice issues. This was the first congressional hearing on the issue. Representatives from governmental agencies, minority environmental groups, and mainstream environmental organizations testified. See Disproportionate Impact of Lead Poisoning on Minority Communities: Hearings before the Subcomm. on Health and the Environment of the House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992) [hereinafter Lead Poisoning Hearings] (not yet published; copy on file with the Northwestern University Law Review). 13 Dr. Benjamin Chavis of the United Church of Christ's Commission for Racial Justice apparently first used the term environmental racism in the early 1980s to describe the tendency of government and business to locate in minority communities hazardous waste disposal treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and industries that emit toxic pollutants. We Speak for Ourselves: Social Justice, Race & Environment, RACE, POVERTY & ENV'T, Winter 1991, at 12 (book review). 790 HeinOnline Nw. U. L. Rev 87:787 (1993) Pursuing Environmental Justice tice. 14 This absence of legal commentary contrasts sharply with a growing literature in other academic and popular periodicals,15 with the more recent efforts to increase awareness of environmental justice concerns within government,16 and with the filing of lawsuits derived from such concerns in the context of formal litigation Students at the University of California at Berkeley Law School and New York University Law School held conferences on the subject in See Daniel Suman, Reportback. Fighting LULU's: Effective Community Organizing, RACE, POVERTY & ENV'T, Summer 1990, at 6. Students at Harvard Law School sponsored a one-day workshop in March 1991 and again in November 1992, and students at Washington University in St. Louis did the same in November Finally, students at the University of Michigan, Columbia University, and University of Minnesota law schools sponsored meetings on the issue in January, March, and October 1992, respectively. There are to date just a handful of articles and student notes on the issue, all of recent origin. The first publication to address the issue in significant depth was a student note published in the University of Michigan Law Review, which focused on the availability of equal protection claims to remedy discriminatory siting of hazardous waste facilities, and the inadequacies of current state and federal legislation. See Rachel D. Godsil, Comment, Remedying Environmental Racism, 90 MICH. L. REv. 394 (1991); see also Luke W. Cole, Remedying Environmental Racism: A View From the Field, 90 MICH. L. REv (1992). Luke Cole of the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., is publishing an article, contemporaneous to this piece, on environmental poverty law. See Luke W. Cole, Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection: The Need for Environmental Poverty Law, 19 EcOLOGY L.Q. (forthcoming Dec. 1992) [hereinafter Cole, The Need for Environmental Poverty Law]. Descriptions of the issue focusing almost exclusively on hazardous waste facility siting are contained in R. George Wright, Hazardous Waste Disposal and the Problems of Stigmatic and Racial Injury, 23 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 777 (1991); Kelly M. Colquette & Elizabeth A. H. Robertson, Environmental Racism: The Causes, Consequences, and Commendations,S TUL. ENVTL. L.J. 153 (1991); and Naikang Tsao, Comment, Ameliorating Environmental Racism: A Citizen's Guide to Combatting the Discriminatory Siting of Toxic Waste Dumps, 67 N.Y.U. L. REv. 366 (1992). Finally, there is a symposium issue on the subject in the University of Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, which contains a series of short essays on the topic, the most significant of which is an essay by Professors Regina Austin and Michael Schill discussing minority grassroots environmentalism. See Regina Austin & Michael Schill, Black. Brown, Poor & Poisoned: Minority Grassroots Environmentalism and the Quest for Eco-Justice, 1 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL'y 69 (1991). 15 See, e.g., ROBERT D. BULLARD, DUMPING IN DIXIE: RACE, CLASS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (1990) [hereinafter BULLARD, DUMPING IN DIXIE]; Paul Mohai, Black Environmentalism, 71 Soc. SCI. Q. 744 (1990); Robert D. Bullard, Ecological Inequities and the New South: Black Communities Under Siege, 17 J. ETHNIC STUD., Winter 1990, at 101 [hereinafter Bullard, Ecological Inequities and the New South]; David Kallick, The Struggle for Community: Race, Class and the Environment, 21 Soc. POL'Y, Fall 1990, at 18; Gar Smith, Freeways, Communities and Environmental Racism , RACE, POVERTY & ENV'T, Apr. 1990, at 7; Pat Bryant, Toxies and Racial Justice, 20 Soc. POL'Y, Summer 1989, at 48; Dick Russell, Environmental Racism: Minority Communities and their Battle Against Toxins, AMICUS J., Spring 1989, at 22; Robert D. Bullard & Beverly Hendrix Wright, Environmentalism and the Polities of Equity: Emergent Trends in the Black Community, 12 MID AM. REv. Soc. 21 (1987) [hereinafter Bullard & Wright, Environmentalism and the Polities of Equity]; Robert D. Bullard & Beverly Hendrix Wright, The Polities of Pollution: Implicationsfor the Black Community, 47 PHYLON 71 (1986) [hereinafter Bullard & Wri
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks