Though climate change and its effects do not recognize state borders, they affect states in the Levant in different ways due to variations in states’ geography, environment, economy, and government response. In Syria, the adverse effects of climate change have caused new and exacerbated existing socioeconomic problems, worsening living conditions for the Syrian people. In the past two decades, environmental conditions in Syria have deteriorated further because of unsustainable, unhelpful government policies.
Environmental Effects of Climate Change in Syria
Drought and Desertification: In the years leading up to the Syrian civil war, the country experienced its worst drought on record. The drought began in the winter of 2006-2007 following a reduction in regional rainfall, which is the primary water source for the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and their tributaries. Lasting from 2007 to 2010, the drought followed a number of multi-year droughts in the 1980s and 1990s.
Water Scarcity: According to data collected by climatologists, water became much more scarce during the recent Syrian drought with decreased surface moisture and groundwater supplies. Rising temperatures contributed to drier soil and increased evaporation. In the years since the onset of the Syrian conflict, the country has faced rainfall deficits and other worsening environmental conditions.
Crop Failure: This water scarcity has substantially reduced vegetation and agricultural output. The drought caused widespread crop failure throughout the Syrian countryside and left farmers and nomadic herders without needed water sources for irrigation and livestock. According to former Vice President Al Gore, between 2006-2010, the severe drought destroyed 60% of Syrian farms and caused 80% of livestock to perish.
Dust Storms: Another interrelated consequence of the Syrian drought has been increased sandstorms throughout the country and region. The sharp decline in Syrian farming caused an increase in the amount of untended soil, which can easily be swept up in a dust storm.
Economic and Societal Effects
Food Insecurity: Syria’s reduced agricultural production has caused significant price hikes in imported food products like wheat and rice and greater food insecurity overall. Syria’s reduced irrigation capacity and pasture availability have diminished its cereal production and livestock while wheat production has reached record lows. In 2020, 50.25% of Syrians, were food insecure.
Urbanization and Population Displacement: As drought undermined hundreds of thousands of farmers’ livelihoods, many were forcibly displaced from rural areas to urban centers. While estimates vary, some reports suggest that as many as 1.5 million Syrians were internally displaced because of climate-related factors, meaning they became climate migrants or refugees. Additionally, the influx of more than one million Iraqi refugees by 2010 exacerbated the economic pressures and resource demand caused by internal population displacement in Syria.
Social Upheaval: Syria’s rapid urbanization prior to the civil war increased social unrest in the country’s cities, with greater competition for employment and increasingly scarce resources. As food and economic insecurity and climate migration rose in, the Assad regime violently suppressed protesters and worsened living conditions for the Syrian people.
Syrian Government Mismanagement
Unsustainable Environmental Policies: While climate change has worsened living conditions in Syria, the country’s government has also contributed to this issue. Even before the 2011 uprising, unsustainable agricultural policies like the overuse of water for water-intensive crops degraded agricultural land in Syria. This policy intensified the climate change effects and related issues on Syrians. Additionally, Syria lacked and still lacks the necessary drought monitoring and management capabilities to respond effectively to droughts and their negative byproducts.
Poor Governance: The Assad regime failed to provide subsidies for powering irrigation pumps and transporting produce, exacerbating Syria’s water scarcity and crop failure. While the government had developed a national drought strategy by 2006, it did not implement the plan in time to alleviate the drought’s effects. The regime worsened the drought’s economic fallout by shutting down a micro-finance network of village funds a few years before the uprising. By taking away this network, which functioned as an income security net, the government denied rural Syrian farmers economic relief.
Salmon are an integral part of the Pacific Northwest, both in terms of ecosystem and cultural value. They are considered a keystone species, which are species whose presence in an ecosystem has a disproportionate effect on other organisms within the system. As salmon travel to the ocean, more than 50% of their diet is insects; without Pacific salmon, there could be an explosion of insects in these ecosystems since salmon are the main insect predator in aquatic environments. When salmon spawn, their energy-rich bodies and eggs are crucial food sources for a variety of predators, ranging from wolves to bears to scavenging birds. Their carcasses also provide valuable nutrients to streams and rivers, increasing organic matter and nutrients that will enhance the productivity of the surrounding ecosystem and be transferred to all levels of the food chain.
Salmon have cultural significance in the northwest, especially to indigenous peoples of the region. The cultures, intertribal relations, fishing technologies, and economies have all been influenced by salmon, from ancient Native American trade routes to modern commercial fishing. Salmon plays a role in religious services, such as the celebration of the annual salmon return which facilitates the transfer of traditional values and lifestyles from generation to generation. Fishing continues to remain the preferred livelihood method of many indigenous groups, as salmon has been a primary food source for these people for thousands of years, and remains an essential part of their nutritional health.
Salmon Decline
The existence of salmon in the Northwest is in danger. Nineteen populations of wild salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and salmon have already gone extinct in 40% of their historical range. Fishery scientists have summarized the human factors implicated in salmon decline as the “four H’s”: harvest, hatcheries, habitat, and hydropower. Overharvesting of adult salmon in the early 20th century decimated populations throughout the Pacific Northwest. Construction and development have encroached along the shoreline of salmon habitats and on beaches where salmon find their food. An increase in pavement contributes to toxic storm water runoff, which threatens the health and safety of the salmon’s aquatic habitat. Dams block the passage of salmon from their spawning habitat as they travel back from the Pacific Ocean. For example, more than 40% of this habitat is permanently blocked by dams in the Columbia River Basin. By creating reservoirs, dams inundate the shoreline and can wipe out historical spawning grounds. Reservoirs also slow the flow of water, which can lead to rising temperature levels that can be lethal to salmon.
Policy Interventions
The United States has a legal obligation to conserve salmon populations through a series of tribal and international treaties. Some treaties dating back to the 1850s granted Native American tribes “the right of taking fish from all usual and accustomed grounds and stations… in common with all citizens.” This right was reaffirmed in a 1974 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Boldt Decision, which validated the tribes’ treaty-reserved fishing rights.
The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty represents a commitment made by the US and Canada to maintain their salmon fisheries and enhancement programs to prevent overfishing and provides the framework for Pacific salmon conservation and management.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), is a national law creating a program for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and animals. Salmon are protected under the ESA, and conservation efforts like transporting migrating salmon around dams, placing fishing restrictions on vulnerable stocks, and operating hatcheries in order to bolster populations are supported under the ESA. These efforts come at a price, with recent estimates indicating that salmon conservation in the Columbia River Basin costs $788 million per year. While these interventions have slowed the decline of salmon, they have not reversed the decline. As a result, restorationists have started to turn to more drastic steps in recent years, like dam removal, which helps restore stream habitats and natural hydrological connections. However, dam removal is often controversial because it can involve the loss of hydroelectricity and water for irrigation.
Case Study: Klamath Water Wars
The Klamath Water Wars began with a 2001 drought, when the federal government cut off water deliveries to irrigators in order to maintain the habitat for salmon and other fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. This decision enraged farmers, and in an act of civil disobedience they formed a “bucket brigade” to manually put water back into the irrigation canals. The following year, the Bush Administration resumed normal water deliveries which significantly decreased the water flow in the rivers resulting in tens of thousands of fish in the lower river washing up dead. The Karuk and Yurok tribes of California were devastated by these deaths, as they traditionally depend on the salmon harvest. These opposing opinions created a controversy framed as farmers versus fish, demonstrating a common dichotomy that environmental and human interests are not aligned.
While the conflict was framed as fish vs farmers, it was really about water resources. Droughts in the western US are projected to grow more serious, exacerbated by climate change. This is likely to increase the urgency of issues related to water scarcity as policymakers seek to supply water to both people and animals.
In the Klamath Basin, leaders sought to address these challenges through collaborative negotiations with a wide range of stakeholders. In 2010, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) and the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) were announced as the results of the multi-year negotiations amongst California and Oregon governments, as well as many interest groups. The KBRA helps restore Klamath and provides water deliveries to both wildlife refuges and federal project irrigators. The KHSA details the process that leads to the removal of the four privately owned dams spanning across Southern Oregon and Northern California on the Klamath River, which would be one of the largest and most complex removals ever undertaken. Though the agreements have not been enacted in Congress, recent reports say that these four dam removals are still proceeding and are scheduled to begin in 2023.
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution refers to pollution sources that do not emerge from a single point of origin, which stands in contrast to point source pollutants where there is a single identifiable source of the pollution. Pollutants coming from NPS are generally carried by stormwater run-off, and some common industries such as agriculture, mining, and urban development. Examples of NPS pollutants include excess fertilizers and herbicides, oil, grease, and bacteria from human and animal waste. While the exact sources of NPS cannot be identified, scientists have developed systems to reduce pollution in environments that create a high volume of pollution (ex. urban areas, agricultural operations, marinas). Examples include buffer strips that absorb pollutants before they reach the water, retention ponds that capture runoff and stormwater, and sediment fences that filter pollutants and slow runoff.
Implications for Human and Environmental Health
NPS is responsible for a host of damaging effects on environmental and public health. One example is eutrophication. Certain forms of NPS, such as agricultural run-off, create an overabundance of nutrients in bodies of water. Algae feed on these nutrients and become algae blooms, which block sunlight and can sometimes release toxins. The dissolved oxygen in the water is consumed as the algae are decomposed by bacteria. When the oxygen is removed, it makes it difficult for fish and other aquatic organisms to breathe, creating what is called a “dead zone” because so few life forms are able to survive in areas with such low oxygen levels. The Gulf of Mexico has the largest dead zone in the United States; this 6,500 square mile area has been created due to NPS pollution from the Mississippi River Basin. The high nutrient levels and algal blooms associated with dead zones have harmful community effects, such as releasing toxins into drinking water that in turn cause illness for humans and animals.
NPS affects not just the ecosystem, but also the economy. If pollution causes mass die-offs and dirty-looking water, then the jobs, tourism, and recreation that rely on the waterways may experience financial losses. Human health is also at risk. For example, urban runoff carries bacteria and viruses due to improper sewage treatment, which contaminates drinking water sources and can even result in severe human illness. One common bacteria found in NPS pollution is Escherichia coli (E. coli), which is associated with human and animal waste. A major source of E. coli in urban and suburban areas is pet waste that is left on lawns and then washed into sewers and waterways.E. coli can lead to human illnesses such as diarrhea, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and other respiratory illnesses.
Current Policies and Responses
United States
In the United States, there are initiatives at the national and state level to address NPS. Nationally, the USDA runs the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, a voluntary conservation program. Through this program, the USDA provides both financial and technical assistance to farmers to help them address concerns about natural resource management and create environmental benefits. Another federal program that addresses NPS pollution is the EPA’s 319 Grant Program for States and Territories. The 319 Grant Program was established under the Clean Water Act and provides funding for state efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. One limitation of this program is that the EPA has no regulatory authority over the programs created by the states and must rely heavily on their voluntary participation. However, a benefit is that each state can use these funds to craft an approach that best fits its particular context.
California’s NPS programs are directly funded by the 319 Grant Program. One example is the Porter-Cologne Act, the central law regarding water quality in the state. This policy regulates all activities and factors that could affect water quality and declares that the state can exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the water and prevent degradation. To continue combatting NPS, California is instating the 2020-2025 Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Plan. It aims to reduce NPS pollution through waste discharge requirements, create a grant program focused on controlling NPS, and continually evaluate the success of the NPS Program through tracking activities and water quality improvements.
Overall, NPS programs in the US have had mixed success. A federal review of the 319 Grant Program found that state programs have not reliably yielded measurable water quality improvements and some of the funds were not effectively implemented or were not clearly linked to water quality improvements. Limitations include budget constraints, which have led states to prioritize the most cost-effective projects instead of simply the most effective projects, and inconsistent levels of EPA involvement and support in state programs. Despite this, the 319 Grant Program has reduced agricultural runoff of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
China
Within the international community, China takes a markedly different approach to NPS prevention. While many US policies are aimed at state and local levels, NPS policies in China are focused on the national level. For example, China’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs started implementing new policies around NPS prevention in 2015, including water-saving agriculture practices and a “zero-growth” action plan for regulating fertilizer and pesticide application. These policies have been successful in decreasing the amount of NPS pollution in China from 2016 to 2020. While these policies have been achieving their goals, there are additional areas to continue addressing NPS. One area of potential is in China’s new national emissions trading scheme, where the trading between point source and nonpoint source pollution can trigger the adoption of new techniques and methods for the proper production and management of natural resources. This program is still in the early stages of development but shows potential, as the market behaviors associated with NPS have been untapped in reducing pollution.
Future of NPS
The effects of NPS pollution will likely be exacerbated by climate change, which is predicted to cause more frequent and intense rainstorms. Rain will fall more frequently and in new parts of the world on infrastructure not built to withstand this amount of water, leading to polluted runoff. This runoff as well as potential sewer overflows would contribute to a great increase in NPS pollution and negative effects on human health.
However, a number of new technological advances and policies may help control and prevent further pollution. These include the refinement of practices to reduce the application of nitrogen and phosphorus, the use of ecological ditch systems to remove agricultural runoff, and end treatment technologies that remove pollutants from waterways. Many of these technologies show promise for controlling nonpoint source pollution.
The common utilization of monocropping in early history has proven to be environmentally unsustainable, as this farming technique is detrimental to soil health. Monocropping exhausts soil of nutrients, and is therefore less productive in growing future crops. Growing one crop on the same plot of land decreases the biodiversity of fields, since only one or two crops are consuming an entire field. Additionally, pesticides are necessary to control a multitude of insect predators. If a pest’s food source comes from a large field of one crop, it will have abundant resources to reproduce in large numbers.
Vertical Integration
One major change in modern farming practice is “vertical integration“, which marked a shift from small farms producing many different crops to industrialized systems that focus on mass production. These large farming systems are often run by large corporations that dominate the food industry by creating “factory farms”. The growth of crops on these farms usually involves large-scale production sites to provide for the increasing human population. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are often used, as well as harmful animal antibiotics to treat animals involved in food production. Animal confinements, known as CAFOs, are also commonly used in industrial agriculture and are employed to feed animals used in food preparation.
CAFOs are large sources of pollution, and affect both air and water quality. The 1972 Clean Water Act prompted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate animal confinement, but current regulations often lack enforcement. Many animal rights activists object to the treatment of animals in CAFOs. In practice, many of the cages created for animals are small and overcrowded, and pain medications are not utilized for painful procedures, such as tail docking. In 1970, the average dairy farm supported 19 cattle, and in 2006, this number grew to 120. Some of the largest farms in the country maintain more than 15,000 cattle. CAFOs are often not monitored closely by the EPA, so the enforcement of environmental and humane policies is limited.
Fertilizer
The use of fertilizer in farming can have negative environmental repercussions. For example, through natural runoff, chemicals in the fertilizer, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, enter nearby waterways. These chemicals promote the growth of microorganisms within water systems, inducing processes like eutrophication, which is caused by excessive algal growth and leads to the depletion of dissolved oxygen within water ecosystems. The microorganism “blooms”, causing fish and other organisms to suffocate from a lack of oxygen, eventually leading to a surplus of dead organisms, decreasing the overall water quality. In addition, some bacteria within manure can cause disease as well. Lastly, fertilizers can be dangerous to groundwater sources. When nitrates enter the soil, they are not absorbed within the ground, which causes them to seep into groundwater. In drinking water, nitrates can cause methemoglobinemia, which is a blood disorder in humans and other warm-blooded animals.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2019, the agriculture sector accounted for 10 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation of products, farming practices and machines, and factories all contribute to a larger abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Fertilizers used on agricultural soil, the growth of nitrogen-fixing crops, and irrigation practices—among other methods of production—promote the release of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Livestock contribute to atmospheric methane as they undergo enteric fermentation, which involves the digestion of food within their stomachs, specifically the stomachs of cattle. Manure management also affects the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere, currently accounting for 12 percent of agriculture-related emissions in the United States. Agriculture emission rates have increased by 12 percent since 1990. This is due to an increase in nitrous oxide releases from soil and livestock manure management, as well as a rise in methane production from livestock.
While greenhouse gas emissions prove to be an environmental problem, there are many opportunities to reduce the rate and quantity of their release into the atmosphere. Because the overuse of fertilizers leads to an increased production of nitrous oxide emissions, using less fertilizer can decrease emissions. Furthermore, by modifying pasture quality, farmers can decrease the amount of methane contributed to emission rates. Lastly, managing manure in a more sustainable way can reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions.
Legislation
Many pieces of legislation have been aimed at regulating food production in an attempt to lower its impact on the environment. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was established, which regulated atmospheric emissions. The Clean Air Act was amended multiple times, as stricter policies were implemented to control air emissions. To address water pollution concerns, the 1972 Clean Water Act, an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, was passed to monitor the amount of pollution in water systems. This law gives the EPA authority to set standards for wastewater. Finally, in 2007, the EPA mandated the “public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from large sources.’. This was part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Sustainable Approach
Many farmers try to incorporate sustainable practices into their work. These farmers grow a more diverse set of crops and employ methods to minimize environmental impacts. Farmers incorporate crop rotation—using a variety of crops in their fields—and combine livestock and plants while farming, among other practices. Furthermore, farmers are trying to move away from the use of tillage in their routines. As sustainable agricultural practices become more prevalent, the future of farming will become more environmentally safe.
With each passing year, the detrimental effects of climate change are becoming ever more apparent, especially in regions like the Levant. As conditions worsen, they lead to social and economic crises in countries throughout the Levant which have struggled to adapt. Ultimately, climate change threatens U.S. interests in the Levant because it exacerbates instability, heightens social and economic problems, and weakens states’ ability to implement an effective response.
Background
The Climate of the Levant Region
The Levant is a geographic region along the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean and includes Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Israel, and Palestine. Located in a transitional climate zone between North-Atlantic-influenced climate systems and monsoonal-influenced climate systems, the region has an arid to semi-arid climate, meaning it receives relatively little precipitation. Despite this dry climate, the Levant has historically been known as the Fertile Crescent for its rich soil and relatively high access to water, which comes from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
These factors have allowed for high agricultural output in the Levant, which has helped many civilizations flourish over thousands of years. Climate change threatens this agricultural productivity and the humans who depend on it.
Climate Change
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in regional or global climate and weather patterns. Though these changes can result from natural processes, today, climate change is primarily driven by human activity. The IPCC notes that there is strong evidence for anthropogenic drivers of climate change, meaning man-made drivers. These include the burning of fossil fuels and other human actions—such as deforestation, increased livestock farming, and the use of fluorinated gasses—that have caused the Earth to warm. Global warming refers to the overall heating of the Earth due to the greenhouse effect, which occurs when greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat from the Sun in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have exponentially increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the extent that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented and accelerated rate. As the Earth’s temperature increases on a global level, regional climate systems are affected differently, meaning the climate is changing rather than simply warming.
Man-made global climate change is having and will continue to have many harmful effects. These include sea level rise; more frequent and extreme natural disasters; biodiversity loss; longer, hotter heatwaves and droughts; and changes in precipitation patterns, among others. As the Earth warms, these effects will exacerbate existing economic, social, and political problems. For this reason, climate change is widely considered a threat multiplier—it increases political instability and social upheaval and therefore poses a security risk to humans and governments around the world.
The Physical Effects of Climate Change in the Levant
In the Levant, the worst effects of climate change include longer and more severe droughts, desertification, hotter temperatures, decreased rainfall, and more frequent dust storms. These effects are occurring simultaneously today and will only get worse in the future.
Drought:According to a NASA study 1998-2012, the Levant region experienced its most severe drought of the past 900 years. During this recent drought, the Levant was 50% drier than at any other point in the past 500 years and 10-20% drier than the driest period during the last nine centuries. Because of climate change, droughts in the Levant and elsewhere globally are expected to be more intense, last longer, and set in quicker.
Desertification: The Levant’s dryland ecosystem is extremely susceptible to overexploitation and improper land use. These practices contribute to the region’s desertification—land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas caused by human activities and climatic variations. This process causes reduced crop and livestock productivity, changes in the composition of plant species, and reduced biological diversity. Thus, in the Levant, it will cause a reduction in the amount of land suitable for agriculture.
Hotter Temperatures and Worse Heatwaves: Because of climate change, the Levant is expected to experience both increased average temperatures and more intense and longer heatwaves. Climate models predict that temperatures in the Levant will continue to rise, and the region will become increasingly hotter and drier. These climate change effects are already visible throughout the region as countries experience record-breaking heat. When combined with high humidity, extreme heat poses health risks, especially to the elderly and children.
Decreased Rainfall and Changing Patterns: Climate change is projected to decrease the average amount of rainfall in the Levant, a region that already does not receive much precipitation. This effect not only poses a problem for regional agriculture, which often relies on rainfall but is also connected to the other environmental problems the region faces. In the past, the Levant’s climate has been characterized by dry summers and more temperate, rainy winters. However, as the climate changes, rainfall patterns are shifting, which has meant drier winters. This shift in rainfall patterns, likely due to an atmospheric shift bringing drier air to the region, is important because rain-fed farming systems like many in the region are especially vulnerable to changes in rainfall patterns.
Sand and Dust Storms: Another major climate-related concern for the Levant is the increase and worsening of dust storms. These storms are remarkable for their intensity and the large size of their dust particles. The particles from the massive sandstorm that occurred in the region in September 2015 were bigger than any that had been recorded since 1995. The sandstorm created a thick layer of dust spanning Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Cyprus. Dust storms cause significant air pollution, which is a hazard for people’s health in itself, and these storms also increase aircraft and traffic accidents.
Government Mismanagement in the Levant
While climate change has caused or exacerbated these physical effects, related issues have contributed to the problems the region faces today. Namely, pollution and other consequences of government mismanagement have further worsened environmental and living conditions in the region. Poor governance and corruption make people in the Levant less able to feel relief from extreme heat and other climate change effects, as citizens face water and electricity shortages when they need these resources the most. In other words, there is less water now, and of what water there is, the public cannot access it.
The Effects of Climate Change on Humanity in the Levant
Between the intensifying impacts of climate change and inadequate government responses to these effects, the people living in the Levant face worsening living conditions due to a number of climate-related problems. These include water scarcity, food insecurity, climate migration, more disease, worsening economic conditions, and social strife.
Water Scarcity: Due to climate change and its drying effects on the Levant region, freshwater resources have become more scarce, in both quantity and quality. Additionally, pollution and the salinization—increased salt concentration in water—of rivers and other water sources worsen water quality. An increasing number of people in the region are facing a lack of access to clean water, which is a public health concern as well. The effects of climate change, such as increased rainfall, flooding, and droughts, can often degrade water quality even as population growth increases its demand. As clean water becomes increasingly inaccessible, the risk of water-borne illnesses like cholera goes up as people are forced to consume contaminated water. For instance, contaminated water in Gaza leaves people more vulnerable to illnesses and infections, including cholera, Salmonella, diarrhea, polio, and viral meningitis.
Food Insecurity: As temperatures continue to rise, water supplies continue to fall, and environment degradation worsens, food insecurity is likely to increase throughout the Levant. Agriculture productivity has and will continue to decrease because of droughts, desertification, and dust storms. The latter is particularly damaging to crops and can remove nutrient-rich topsoil further reducing food production. Food insecurity has serious public health consequences, especially for children, since malnutrition can stunt development physically and intellectually. Moreover, Syria’s food shortage prior to the civil war caused the mass displacement of farmers, who could not remain in their homes after they lost both their source of income and sustenance. Food insecurity in the country has only grown worse since 2011, as millions of Syrians continue to go hungry.
Climate Migration: Another effect of climate change is an increase in forced internal and international migration throughout the Levant. Extreme weather events, like severe flooding, will at least temporarily displace tons of people and destroy tons of acres of crops, taking away people’s livelihoods in the long term. More slow-onset events like desertification will permanently displace people as more and more areas become uninhabitable. Climate change has already caused the mass migration of millions of people in the Levant alone. In Iraq, for example, water scarcity has led to a dramatic increase in forced migration and urbanization.
More Disease and Illness: As the Earth warms, mosquitoes are able to travel outside of their normal regions, increasing the spread of infectious diseases and reaching new populations. Indeed, climate-related effects will result in more disease transmission in the Levant in multiple ways. Malnutrition from lack of access to nutritious food can increase the likelihood of contracting an infectious disease. According to the United Nations, change in land use is the “primary transmission pathway for emerging infectious diseases of humans, over 60% of which are zoonotic.” Other issues are the negative health outcomes that come from extreme temperatures, including dehydration, heat exhaustion, heatstroke, and death. Extreme heat also reduces health systems’ capabilities to address issues and increases the number of accidents and the transmission rate of illnesses. All of these climate factors are present in the Levant.
Worsening Economic Conditions: Climate change will exacerbate existing economic issues and deepen poverty in the Levant as well. It has and will continue to increase employment fragility as it threatens economic productivity and many industries like agriculture. It will also increase competition for low-skill jobs as displaced people search for work. The rising costs of climate change put additional pressure on national economies while constraining governments’ capabilities to implement sustainable policies and invest in sustainable infrastructure. On a macro and micro level, climate change poses a great risk to people’s economic fortunes.
Social Strife: In addition to the economic and societal problems described above, global climate change drives social unrest and accelerates armed conflict in the Levant. As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and others have noted, “The climate crisis isn’t coming. It’s already here,” and it brings with it instability and conflict in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere. Furthermore, resource mismanagement by governments in the Levant exacerbates the climate change effects, thereby worsening living conditions even more.
Conclusion
Climate change and its effects have already worsened living conditions in the Levant and will continue to exacerbate problems in the coming years. Furthermore, as the impacts of climate change worsen economic and social conditions, these bad social and economic conditions can cause further climate effects in a devastating feedback loop. For example, scientists believe that the Syrian civil war may have created the conditions for a deadly dust storm across the region. This terrible cycle will intensify as the temperature of the planet continues to rise and as these climate effects wreak more and more havoc on people throughout the Levant.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a section of federally protected land that spans over 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. ANWR is home to a variety of ecosystems and wildlife, including caribou and polar bears, both endangered species. The land is also sacred to local Indigenous groups. The Gwich’in people refer to the Coastal Plain area of ANWR as “The Sacred Place Where Life Begins” because it serves as a migration and birthing place for caribou. The US Fish and Wildlife Service manages ANWR under the four following principles: “to conserve animals and plants in their natural diversity, ensure a place for hunting and gathering activities, protect water quality and quantity, and fulfill international wildlife treaty obligations.” The ANWR also has value for oil drilling, due to its 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain. The conflict of environmental and economic interests has led to over 40 years of debates and policies about oil and gas development in the area.
Background
Oil drilling in the ANWR has a long history of controversy. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) prevented oil drilling in ANWR with the exception of the Coastal Plain area, but this policy did not immediately allow for any oil drilling in the Coastal Plain. The policy required the Department of the Interior (DOI) to first perform an environmental impact analysis of oil and gas exploration in the area, to allow Congress to make an informed decision about whether or not to allow it. In 1987, the DOI finalized their research and recommended opening the area to oil and gas development, but Congress chose not to act on this decision, maintaining the protection of the Coastal Plain for the time being. In 2015, the US Fish and Wildlife Services released a new environmental impact report recommending Congress to establish 12 million acres within the ANWR, including the Coastal Plain, as Wilderness Study areas, which would prevent oil and gas developments, but Congress also never acted on this, leaving the 1980 policy in place.
Policy Changes in 2017
The possibility of drilling was discussed again when President Trump took office in 2016. In 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act allowed for oil leasing by private companies on the land. However, before this could begin, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had to conduct a new environmental impact survey. In 2019, the BLM released their final environmental impact statement, in which they recommended leasing the maximum amount of land for oil exploration. Conservation groups, 15 states, and Gwich’in tribes believed this survey was not sufficiently thorough, and filed multiple lawsuits against BLM’s oil and gas leasing program which stated that the decision violated the Endangered Species Act.
Arguments and Responses
Seismic surveys for oil can disrupt polar bear habitats, potentially threatening an already endangered species. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a peer-reviewed study that concluded that these surveys could be done in a way that poses a minimal threat to polar bears, the U.S. Geological Survey found that 34% of polar bear dens in the Coastal Plains could be threatened by seismic surveys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded to this potential threat by assuring that, even if the polar bears were harassed, they would not be harmed. The Gwich’in tribes also argued that the BLM did not properly factor in the importance of this land to their tribes. Alaska has a short growing season, so the environment can take decades to fully recover from human damage. This means that any potential damage from oil drilling could be significantly destructive to sacred land.
Latest Developments
These lawsuits slowed the approval process but did not halt it permanently. In January, 2021, President Trump authorized the BLM to begin the process of leasing the land for oil exploration. Once again, this decision was met with resistance. Members of Congress and Senators wrote to the secretary of the DOI to try to stop this process, arguing that the environmental impact survey was rushed and that the significance of the land to the Gwich’in people was ignored.
A few days later, newly inaugurated President Biden signed an executive order that temporarily stopped BLM’s Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program, and required the new secretary of the DOI to review the previous impact survey. On June 1st, 2021, Biden’s Secretary of the DOI, Deb Haaland, ruled the BLM’s 2017 environmental survey as “legally deficient” and began the process to conduct a new environmental survey of the effects of oil and gas exploration in the Coastal Plain.
One of the earliest and most impactful events relating to environmental justice and land-use policy was the 1926 zoning case of Village Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. The case emerged following a real estate firm’s attempt to develop land for industrial use. The town of Euclid passed zoning restrictions to limit the land’s development, which prompted Ambler Realty to sue the town on the grounds that the new zoning provisions constituted an overreach of the town’s policing power and jurisdiction over private property. Many of the town’s middle-class homeowners harbored concerns that the construction of industrial developments on Ambler Realty’s land would attract lower-income people of color to their community to work in the factories. The Supreme Court sided with Euclid and its residents. This ruling is representative of countless examples in which zoning laws have been used to exclude people of color from wealthy white suburbs.
Memphis Sanitation Strike
As the Civil Rights movement began to blossom in the 1960s, so too did concerns over environmental racism. In 1968, garbage workers in Memphis, Tennessee went on strike to protest unfair pay and poor working conditions. This protest, known as the Memphis Sanitation Strike, was the first time Black people in America mobilized as a national group to fight against environmental racism.
Warren Country sit-in and Aftermath
In 1982, awareness about the importance of understanding race-based disparities in the environmental justice movement was further galvanized by the Warren County sit-in. The protest emerged in response to the proposed siting of a toxic waste landfill in Warren County, a small Black community in North Carolina. The protest consisted of a large non-violent sit-in during which over 500 activists were arrested. Although the protest failed to stop the development of the landfill, it did produce a significant response. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study in 1983 following the sit-in which provided significant empirical evidence that landfills and other hazardous land uses were disproportionately located in poor Black communities. The study used data from the 1980 Census which showed that three out of four hazardous waste landfills were located in areas where the population was at least a quarter Black and living below the poverty line.
In 1987 a study was published by the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ (UCC). The study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States,” concluded that race was the most significant factor in determining the location of hazardous waste sites, even more so than socioeconomic status.
Towards the end of the 20th century, the Environmental Justice movement began to pick up steam. The first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held in 1991, and the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) was established in 1992, among other federal and regional working groups focused on addressing issues of environmental injustice. In addition, further environmental justice-focused policy was passed, beginning with President Clinton’s executive order addressing the disproportionate negative environmental impacts on minority and low-income communities.
The Clean Air Act was established to help regulate emissions, and made housing closer to public transportation more desirable and thus, more expensive. The Clean Water Act was established to regulate run-off, development, residential and commercial pollution. It regulates development by requiring proper storm drainage or other means to prevent harmful runoff, this causes development prices to increase thus, raising housing prices. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Act (CERCLA) is a superfund that was created to help clean up hazardous waste. It makes owners responsible for toxic waste found on their property. The process of checking or removing toxic waste is expensive and contributes to housing prices. The Endangered Species Act is meant to protect species in danger of becoming extinct and to protect habitats and food sources. Desirable land close to protected land becomes more expensive because of the decrease in supply.
Impact on Urban vs. Suburban Housing
The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act do not have as great an impact in urban areas because of the availability of public transportation, and storm drainage or other issues are typically integrated into the infrastructure of a city. Further, apartment buildings with 5+ units generally use less energy. These Acts have more effect on suburban living because of the environmental inefficiency of suburban living. Suburbs typically have larger homes, are more spread out, have larger/higher numbers of vehicles, and often infrastructure is not in place prior to the development of the area. The larger homes require more energy to heat or cool and suburban residents consume more gasoline because of their driving habits. Emissions from cars and transportation account for about 50% of all household emissions which can be avoided by using public transportation or alternative means of movement. City-dwellers have a smaller carbon footprint than suburbanites. Suburban areas tend to have fewer transportation options, although they are good candidates for electrical vehicles and solar energy.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is more likely to affect suburban development than urban development. This is mostly because “conventional housing development has contributed to converting rural land at a rate three times faster than population growth.” This means that they are encroaching on rural land that hosts more wild species. There are cases in urban areas where the ESA applies, but it is far more common in suburban and rural areas.
Benefits of Smart Growth and Green Construction
Advocacy for “smart growth” and green construction also impacts housing supply. Smart growth encourages green construction or approaches that consider the building’s whole life cycle. This means considering alternative uses for the building after its original purpose has been served or considering how the demolition of the building will impact the local environment. Green construction/building standards involve considering and pushing for the use of sustainable sites, energy and water-efficient materials and practices, sustainable materials and resource use, indoor environmental quality, emissions, operations, and maintenance (the resources available to fix issues safely and sustainably). Green construction can lead to savings on utilities through more efficient systems by reducing energy and water consumption. Examples of this include better insulation, low-flush toilets, building design that conserves heat such as window placement.
Over the last three Presidential Administrations, the Bears Ears National Monument has become the center of a heated debate. With some fighting for size reductions and others calling for full size restorations, both sides have presented a variety of compelling arguments. You can read more about the Bears Ears controversy here.
Although there are many different arguments surrounding Bears Ears, the economic impact of the monument is one of its most hotly contested issues. Some say that the monument’s designation would support local economies through increased tourism revenue, while others argue that the monument would be largely harmful to the surrounding communities because of limitations on resource extraction and job creation.
Economic Trends of National Monuments
The United States is home to over 100 national monuments. With designations occurring as early as 1906, the long history of national monuments allows researchers to observe trends in their economic impacts.
A 2020 study found that national monuments usually result in positive economic impacts. The research spanned 25 years and examined links between national monument designation and economic impact throughout the western United States. Although average wages saw no change from monument designations, data collected during the study indicated that monuments generally lead to increased numbers of businesses and jobs in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, it was discovered that these new businesses succeeded more frequently and held relatively more staying power.
Researchers have observed many examples of national monuments supporting local and state economies. On a state level, Nevada’s outdoor recreation industry sustains almost 90,000 jobs and generates over $12 billion in yearly consumer spending. In Maine, $2.2 billion in wages and over 75,000 jobs stem from outdoor recreation. In New Mexico, the outdoor recreation industry creates thousands more jobs than mining and energy combined. For local economies, the number of service jobs within the Giant Sequoia National Monument region increased by 35%. Arizona’s Vermillion Cliffs National Monument increased the neighboring county’s per capita income by 24%, grew the population by 18%, and increased jobs by 25%. The San Gabriel Mountains Monument increased average incomes in the region by $1,099 each year.
However, the economic issue is not clear-cut. A Headwaters Economics review of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument reported increases in population, jobs, personal income, and per capita income from the years 2001-2015. However, some locals claim that the economic boost from resource extraction industries would easily surpass any benefits brought in from tourism. They argue that the tourism industry is largely seasonal and lower-paying, but resource extraction industries provide stable, higher-paying jobs at all times of the year.
Economic Impact of the Bears Ears National Monument
The Bears Ears National Monument is located in San Juan County, Utah. After its national monument designation in 2016, then-Utah Governor Gary Herbert expressed disappointment and concern due to its potentially harmful effects on local economies. Herbert, along with other Republicans, supported a resolution claiming that the Bears Ears Monument would “forever remove the possibility of economic development and decimate the economy of the region.” The resolution further claims that the monument’s resulting tourism increase will not be enough to sustain its local communities.
Despite fears of harmful economic repercussions, Bears Ears generally helped grow local businesses since its designation. One example comes from Persephone Black, a San Juan County resident and small business owner, who saw her income increase after Bears Ears’ monument designation. A member of the Navajo tribe, she sells traditional jewelry made from glass beads and juniper seeds. She, along with other indigenous business owners in the region, benefited from increased rates of tourism, as visitors often spend money by purchasing souvenirs, food, recreation services, and more. Specifically, those interested in cultural tourism support local indigenous businesses by attracting visitors who wish to engage with the unique cultural heritage of the Bears Ears region.
Those in favor of restoring the Bears Ears monument to its original size also explain that tourism will be better for the economy in the long-run, as visitors will bring in a comparatively sustainable stream of income. Contrasted with the “boom and bust” cycles commonly observed in resource extraction industries (i.e. oil, gas, uranium mining industries), tourism in Bears Ears can be maintained over a longer period of time with less harm to the natural environment.
By protecting the natural environment of Bears Ears, surrounding communities can experience even more economic benefits outside of outdoor recreation. A 2017 assessment of Bears Ears’ natural value concluded that the monument provides over $1 billion in ecosystem goods and services every year. Ecosystem health ultimately benefits humans through goods such as water, timber, and wildlife, and through services such as aesthetic value, water filtration, and flood protection. Therefore, many environmentalists argue that damages to the environment through natural resource extraction would prevent humans from receiving these free rewards, and ultimately cause more economic harm than good in the long-run.
Conclusion
While the economic consequences of the Bears Ears National Monument are important to take into account, they are not the only factors to consider. The debate surrounding Bears Ears is complex, with both sides presenting a variety of logical arguments. As a voter, it is up to you to decide which factors you value most, and ensure your voice is heard.
Here are a few ways to engage with the Bears Ears Monument controversy:
Elected officials want to hear from their constituents. Because constituents’ thoughts and perspectives are often taken into account, contacting one’s representatives allows voters to enact real change.
Environmental justice is both a field of study and a powerful social movement that is concerned with the unequal distribution of environmental benefits (e.g. clean water, parks, healthy food, etc.) and costs (e.g. unsafe housing, air pollution, soil pollution, etc.) between different social groups. Environmental justice is an intersectional concept that includes both environmental conservation and social justice elements, as issues that impact the environment have disproportionate impacts on certain people who live there. Environmental justice aims to ensure that everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, has the same degree of environmental protection and equal access to the processes that directly impact the communities they live in. Although the concept of environmental justice emerged as recently as the early 1980’s, it has since gained significant political attention. Its goals have been incorporated into national, state, and local policies across the country.
The history of environmental justice within the United States predates the country’s initial founding and begins with the earliest European settlements of the 15th century. European colonization forced indigenous groups away from their traditional lands and ignored the methods they used to manage land sustainably. Throughout the years, environmental injustices continued to take on various forms as the country evolved. For example, larger populations created a need for increased city planning, and urban developers placed most waste incinerators in predominantly low-income and minority communities. Today, environmental injustices are observable in a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from food deserts, to water pollution, to flooding vulnerability. Our understanding of environmental injustices has evolved especially quickly over the last few decades, as the reality of climate change and its repercussions are more widely recognized by both the public and policymakers. For instance, as natural disasters exacerbated by climate change threaten the nation’s wellbeing, we find that those unable to evacuate, adequately prepare, and recover are already-vulnerable communities.
Elected officials across the United States have made attempts to address and combat environmental injustice on all levels of government. Local attempts have been made through municipal bans on certain activities, strengthened environmental review processes, enforced public health codes, and many other methods. While not every state has embraced environmental justice goals, many states such as California, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and several others have committed to environmental equity by creating Offices for Environmental Justice, prioritizing environmental justice through legislation, enforcing environmental justice-focused programs, and more. Federal responses to environmental injustices have varied dramatically over the last few administrations, with some being less favorable to environmental justice advocates than others. However, with a new administration now in place, many are hopeful that current President Joe Biden will live up to the promises he has made to reduce the environmental burden faced by marginalized communities across the nation.
Marginalized Communities and Environmental Justice
Marginalized communities are communities that face discrimination and exclusion in various forms based on their identities. The norms and processes affecting marginalized groups put them at a severe social, cultural, economic, and political disadvantage. Marginalized communities typically include racial/cultural/religious minorities, low-income and homeless individuals, immigrants, disabled individuals, refugees, and more. Some examples of exclusion and discrimination faced by such groups include, but are not limited to, disenfranchisement, unequal representation in politics, unequal pay, and harassment.
Environmental justice is an immensely important topic, as marginalized communities often face significantly worse environmental conditions than those who are of a higher socioeconomic status. Because marginalized communities have fewer resources, less time, and less political power to resist unequal environmental conditions, they will continue to have less of an influence over the environmental policies that affect them most. Marginalized communities experiencing environmental inequities are often referred to as environmental justice communities.
Examples of Environmental Injustices
Environmental injustices can be observed in a number of situations. These examples have changed over time as the United States has grown and modernized. During European colonization of the Americas, examples of environmental injustices included indigenous exclusion and displacement from ancestral lands. Today, examples of modern environmental injustices have expanded to include a large variety of concerns, and the list continues to grow as climate change poses new and worsening challenges. The following list describes 10 ongoing environmental justice concerns within the United States and its territories, but this list is not exhaustive.
Water pollution and access: Drinking water violations are issued when a water system does not meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) healthy drinking water standard. Polluted drinking water can arise from a wide variety of sources, such as corroded pipes or industrial discharge. A 2019 study of drinking water violations across the United States confirmed that the rate of such violations is higher in communities with more low-income individuals, racial minorities, and non-native English speakers. Increased drinking water violations were also observed in areas with less reliable access to transportation and more crowded living conditions. Furthermore, these communities experience slow and poor enforcement of laws ensuring clean water access, meaning that these communities face unsafe drinking water conditions more frequently, and for longer. The health implications from contaminant exposure can range from gastroenteritis, to decreased immune system functioning, to cancer.
Air pollution: Marginalized communities are more likely to live near highways, industrial plants, waste incinerators, and other significant sources of air pollution. Studies show that approximately 79% of solid waste incinerators within urban areas are located in marginalized communities. The EPA also classifies air pollution as an environmental justice concern due to the fact that marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by hazardous air quality, and are at a higher risk of developing health issues such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and reduced lung function.
Soil pollution:Contaminated sites are areas of land that contain hazardous waste and/or other substances that could potentially harm property, people, or animals. Because those living within a close proximity to such areas tend to be ethnic minorities and lower-class individuals, this raises environmental injustice concerns. Living near contaminated sites puts individuals at a higher risk of developing cancer, experiencing developmental disabilities, birthing children with congenital defects, and more.
Food deserts: Food deserts are regions where healthy food options are not easily accessible to residents due to insufficient amounts of grocery stores within a practical traveling distance. Food deserts predominantly affect low-income people of color, as research shows that wealthy neighborhoods have 3 or more times the amount of grocery stores than poorer neighborhoods. Food deserts are an environmental justice issue because the lack of affordable, nutritional food is a harmful environmental condition affecting society’s most vulnerable communities. The negative health impacts residents of food deserts face include malnutrition, diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and a host of other concerns.
Wildfire resilience: Wildfires are one type of natural disaster exacerbated by the rising global temperatures associated with climate change. Wildfires, a common occurrence across much of the United States, are burning longer and covering more area than prior decades. With wildfires destroying thousands of homes and other structures each year, those that suffer most are low-income and under-insured individuals who struggle to recover from such significant losses.
Flooding vulnerability: Climate change increases flooding severity. Whether through weather events or sea level rise, flooding will disproportionately affect already-vulnerable communities. One study estimates that one in ten low-income housing projects are located in areas with a direct risk of flooding, affecting nearly half a million people. This estimate is likely to be even higher, as it is based off of historical climate data and did not account for recently observed changes in climate. Additionally, with the often unaffordable $700/year cost of flood insurance, many low-income individuals and families cannot financially recover from property loss or damage.
Hurricane preparation and resilience: Climate change increases the wind speeds, rain levels, and storm surges of hurricanes, making them more destructive and deadly. Inequalities in community preparation and recovery from hurricanes negatively impact already-disadvantaged communities. One example of these injustices can be seen in Puerto Rico’s nearly 11-month long delay in electricity restoration following Hurricane Maria. Another example can be seen in how poor and disabled Houston residents were unable to heed Hurricane Harvey evacuation notices, likely a result of not having sufficient resources or capabilities to do so.
Pesticide exposure: Pesticides are potent chemical substances used to control insects, rodents, molds, and other organisms that pose a threat to agricultural yields. Pesticide exposure is an environmental justice issue that most affects the United States’ low-income and primarily Hispanic farmworker population. These workers often suffer from disproportionate and chronic exposures to harmful pesticide components such as chlorpyrifos, paraquat, and phorate. Scientists link pesticides to a host of harmful health impacts, and farmworkers have suffered from illnesses ranging from Parkinson’s disease, to blindness, to a long list of cancers.
Climate migration:Climate migration describes the forced movement of people from their region of residence because of climate change-related concerns. Climate migration can refer to movement across state or international borders, and can be caused by many dangerous environmental conditions such as sea level rise, drought, frequent hurricanes, deadly wildfires, and more. Because climate change will undoubtedly hit marginalized populations the hardest, those forced to become climate migrants will likely be low-income and minority individuals.
Inadequate governmental preparation for natural disasters in disadvantaged communities: With climate change resulting in increasingly severe natural disasters, sufficient planning to ensure human safety is vital. However, in the face of natural disasters, socioeconomic disparities in governmental preparation puts marginalized communities at a much higher risk. For example, this lack of preparation proved immensely fatal during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where over 1,800 New Orleans residents lost their lives. The improper maintenance of dams and levees in predominantly black neighborhoods allowed them to fail and create massive floods. Additionally, the government did not correctly prepare or implement evacuation procedures, leading to hundreds of avoidable deaths.
Image 2.1 – This image illustrates the noticeable difference in the number of evacuees between wealthier and poorer New Orleans neighborhoods during Hurricane Barry. The French Quarter, a more affluent region of New Orleans, saw higher rates of evacuations in response to a dangerous flood warning (colored in red). Poorer individuals from the Lower Ninth-Ward neighborhoods were unable to evacuate as well (colored in blue), likely due to fewer financial resources for alternative housing and/or a lack of transportation.
Image 2.2 – Created by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, this image details Minnesota’s ongoing struggle with environmental injustices. Overwhelming data supports the idea that Minnesota’s low-income communities and communities of color experience air pollutant exposure on a higher level than the state average.
Arguments Against Environmental Justice
As previously discussed, the Environmental Justice Movement aims to create a society where everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, experiences the same degree of environmental protection and access to environmental benefits. Thus, environmental justice advocates commonly believe citizens have a right to environmental equity, and therefore work to promote both environmental conservation and social justice. However, not everyone agrees with the goals and methods of the Environmental Justice Movement. Critics of environmental justice believe that the resulting increase in government intervention (e.g., stricter regulations) is unnecessary, and only provides politicians with more power to harm and control American citizens. They claim the stricter rules and regulations following environmental justice advancements would inadvertently prevent the creation of jobs and reduce economic output.
Furthermore, because climate change itself is an environmental justice issue that puts disadvantaged groups in an even more vulnerable position, climate change deniers and/or those who dismiss the seriousness of climate change perpetuate these unjust conditions. Denying or diminishing the impact of humans on the global climate can promote environmentally harmful activities such as fossil fuel combustion, and those consequences most affect marginalized communities. In other words, if someone does not view climate change as an issue, they will not have motivation to address it or its environmental justice implications.
Finally, because environmental injustices widely impact low-income and homeless communities, some are hesitant to offer forms of aid and protection as they believe poverty is simply a result of one’s work ethic. They attribute economic success to persistence, grit, and effort, and economic deprivation to laziness, substance abuse, and low moral values. External factors and other uncontrollable circumstances are usually considered less relevant to economic circumstances. As a result, some believe that those disproportionately burdened by poor environmental conditions are either deserving of their current circumstances, or are simply not doing enough to improve them.
Appendix 1 provides a description of key terms relating to environmental justice. For those new to the field of environmental justice, it can be helpful to either read Appendix 1 in advance or refer to it while reading the report.
Further Reading
Report on the people and buildings vulnerable to the flooding effects of climate change:
The Historical Overview section begins with an analysis of European colonization’s influences on today’s environmental injustices, continues with descriptions of early conservation movements hostile to indigenous peoples, describes increasing attention to civil rights and environmental issues during the mid-20th century, and concludes with a discussion of modern environmental discourse and its resulting social movements.
15th century-19th century: European Arrival, Colonization, and Racism
European colonization of lands now known as the Americas continues to greatly influence the way many Americans treat the natural environment, as well as one another. The beliefs held by many early European settlers persisted across several centuries and created a tradition of racism and anti-environment sentiments that have contributed to, and continue to exacerbate, environmental injustices.
Indigenous peoples throughout North America give deep spiritual, social, economic, and cultural significance to their traditional lands. Viewing themselves as a part of nature rather than separate from it, native groups sought to protect the environment and ensure proper and sustainable management practices. For example, indigenous groups recognized the importance of fires in certain ecosystems, and would often carry out strategic land burnings to promote nutrient cycling, foster ecological health, and prevent uncontrollable wildfires.
Unlike indigenous peoples, however, European colonizers believed that humans were separate from nature, and that nature was something to be conquered, commodified, and exploited. European settlers’ disregard for sustainable indigenous practices led to severe environmental degradation that persists today. Overfishing and overhunting of many wildlife species led to severe population declines and/or extinctions. Aggressive wildfire suppression over centuries results in increasingly destructive fires fueled by years of plant debris accumulation. Widespread deforestation reduced the United States forest cover by hundreds of millions of acres, and exacerbated climate change by decreasing carbon sequestration rates.
Additionally, racist beliefs held by European colonizers perpetuated the idea that certain races and ethnicities are inferior and less deserving of dignified lifestyles. Natives faced cruelty and violence at the hands of European colonizers, such as massacres, forced removal from their ancestral homelands, forced cultural assimilation, mass starvations via food supply limitations, and more. Today, those anti-indigenous beliefs have translated into many native groups being subjected to some of the worst environmental conditions in the nation. Major concerns on native lands include abandoned and contaminated uranium mines, leaking oil-transportation pipelines, disparities in clean water access, and air pollution, to name a few. However, European colonizers’ racism extended past indigenous groups and also included a variety of other ethnicities.
Another major manifestation of European settlers’ racism is seen in the enslavement of Africans. Selling human beings as property to be exploited for labor severely dehumanized enslaved individuals. Treated as sub-human, enslaved Africans were often subjected to notoriously poor conditions at the hands of both slave-owners and many white community members. The end of slavery in the mid-1800’s was not the end of racism against black individuals, as discriminatory beliefs against African Americans passed down from generation to generation still permeated many aspects of American life. Today, one example of continued racism against black communities can be seen in the variety of environmental injustices they face. In comparison to white communities, black communities are 75% more likely to be located near oil and gas refineries, are more likely to live in regions with uncontrolled toxic waste, and are at a higher risk of developing air pollution-related illnesses such as asthma. Furthermore, African Americans own significantly less wealth than non-Hispanic white individuals, experience higher rates of food insecurity, and are more economically vulnerable to natural disasters. The environmental inequities faced by black communities come in many forms, and many are rooted in the racism they have experienced for centuries. In short, hundreds of years of European colonization and racism has played a major role in many of the environmental injustices observable today.
Image 3.1: This image contains information on the Dakota Access Pipeline, an underground oil transportation line that spans approximately 1200 miles through 4 different states. This pipeline created significant controversy due to its likelihood of contaminating the environment and the water supplies many Indigenous tribes rely on. This image details how close the pipeline runs to various Native reservations, which puts their health at risk.
19th Century-early 20th Century: Early Conservation Movement and the Rise of Anti-Asian Discrimination
The mid-19th century marked the beginning of the American conservation movement, a period of time where many advancements towards wilderness preservation took place. Prominent voices of this time period included President Theodore Roosevelt, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir. Conservationists of this time period sought to protect nature’s scenic beauty. Many of the protected areas established during the early American conservation movement still stand today, such as Yosemite National Park, Mesa Verde National Park, and the Grand Canyon National Park. These protected areas not only allow wildlife species to thrive within their boundaries, they also foster environmental stewardship amongst the American public and provide valuable ecosystem services such as water and air purification.
However, even when advances were made towards environmental preservation, those efforts were largely harmful to indigenous peoples, as they tended to exclude and displace these groups from their ancestral lands. Native groups were often quickly and violently removed from their homes, or pushed out over several decades. For example, in 1886 the United States Army forcefully gained control of the Yellowstone National Park region and used violent measures to discourage Natives from returning. In 1895 the Blackfeet tribe, faced with starvation from the US government’s widespread buffalo killings and insufficient rations, sold 800,000 acres of their reservation in order to purchase food and supplies for their people. By 1897, that land was designated as a forest reserve, and was later used to establish Glacier National park in 1910. John Muir, one of the most prominent faces of the early conservation movement, stated that indigenous peoples “have no right place in the landscape.” Early conservation efforts were almost exclusively made with the intent to benefit white, middle- and upper-class citizens.
Anti-Asian discrimination also became more prevalent during the latter half of the 19th century as more Asians immigrated to America to pursue job opportunities. Their early contributions were vital in aiding the country’s development, as they worked as farmers, miners, fishermen, railroad constructors, and factory workers. Throughout their long history of settlement in the United States, however, Asian Americans have continuously faced labor exploitation, exclusion, violence, xenophobia, and many other forms of inequities. The legacy of early anti-Asian racism still harms today’s Asian communities in a number of ways, including environmental injustices. To name a few examples, Asian Americans often live in areas with uncontrolled and dangerous waste sites, work in overcrowded and chemical-laden garment factories, and face greater cancer risks from air pollution than white individuals. Although environmental injustices against Asians are under-researched and often under-discussed, it is nevertheless important to acknowledge the inequities they face.
Mid-20th Century: Civil Rights Movement and the Modern American Conservation Movement
The modern conservation movement of the 1960’s and onwards was another important era for environmental policy. This era saw increasing attention and political energy centered around the public and ecological health effects of various human activities such as pollution and chemical use. Unlike the early conservation movement which predominantly focused on natural resource protection for aesthetic and recreational purposes, this movement also centered around less-apparent human and ecological health implications.
In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a now-famous book exposing the dangerous environmental and human health effects of widespread pesticide usage, something once thought to be relatively harmless. Carson dedicates most of the book to discussing the environmental effects, such as bioaccumulation, and how pesticides cause significantly more wildlife deaths than those they intend to kill. She also examines cases of human poisoning from pesticides, such as a physician who experienced permanent nerve damage after a year of using a lawn pesticide. The public outcry following Silent Spring’s publication served as one major catalyst for stronger pieces of environmental legislation, and a “Golden Age” of environmental policy followed. Many strong environmental laws, agencies, and policies were created between the 1960’s and 1970’s, including the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The EPA was also established in December of 1970.
While this time period was marked by major environmental protection efforts, many policymakers had not yet understood that the burden of unhealthy environmental conditions were disproportionately placed onto marginalized communities. The country was still grappling with basic civil rights concerns such as segregation, disenfranchisement, and legalized racism.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s was notable for many reasons, such as securing voting rights for black individuals, prohibiting segregation, and increasing economic opportunities for African Americans. While it did not directly evolve into today’s environmental justice movement, the civil rights movement paved the way for environmental justice discourse by emphasizing the public health dangers faced by communities of color.
1980’s to the Present: Environmental Justice Movement
The 1980’s marked the beginning of the modern environmental justice movement. Coherent discourse of environmental justice began in the United States when Dr. Robert Bullard, now known as the “father of environmental justice” began studying how waste disposal sites were distributed across Houston, Texas. His initial beliefs that the placement of these sites were racially motivated were later confirmed. Bullard discovered that the vast majority of waste dumps and incinerators were located in black communities, despite African Americans only accounting for 25% of the city’s population. This prompted Bullard to become a leading academic and activist campaigner against environmental racism, helping to shape our understanding of environmental injustice and combat its many sources.
Environmental justice was not immediately recognized by policymakers and members of the general public; grassroots efforts by early environmental justice advocates led, and still lead, the Environmental Justice Movement we know today. Pioneered primarily by people of color who saw first-hand the public health dangers posed by poor environmental quality in their communities, they sought to find solutions that would ensure the health of themselves and their loved ones.
One of the earliest and most important fights for environmental justice occurred in 1982 during a nonviolent sit-in against Warren County’s PCB Landfill. PCB stands for polychlorinated biphenyls, which are highly toxic organic compounds known to cause birth defects, skin ailments, cancer, and more. North Carolina planned to dispose of 120 million pounds of soil contaminated with PCB in Warren County, a region of the state housing predominantly poor, African American families. Concerned for the health of their community, hundreds of peaceful protesters fought against these plans. Although the protest was ultimately unsuccessful, it spurred the beginning of the Environmental Justice Movement and motivated citizens to examine other instances of environmental injustices across the country.
Throughout the years, the Environmental Justice Movement has had a large number of notable successes, such as national policy changes and strong pieces of environmental legislation. Now a mainstream movement, many local, state, and federal governments actively work towards achieving its goals. The Environmental Justice Movement also constantly evolves, with today’s movement now tackling new types of environmental injustices and embracing the fight against climate change. Although a lack of environmental justice awareness caused generations of marginalized communities to suffer, many are hopeful the future will continue to bring even more positive change.
Toxic Wastes and Race – This 1987 study conducted by the United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice was the first to examine and address the links between class, race, and the environment on a national level:
The Current Policies and Challenges section will discuss existing environmental justice policies on a local, state, and national level, examine the ever-changing challenges posed by worsening wealth inequalities, climate change repercussions, and conflicting political party stances on environmental justice issues.
Local Policies
Over the last few decades, elected officials on local, state, and federal levels have tried to tackle environmental injustices through legislation and policy changes. Policies on environmental justice are most varied at the local level, and have brought about significant change within their respective communities.
Local policies and laws aimed at combating environmental justice issues are predominantly found in large coastal cities. Although these policies do exist in other areas of the United States, municipalities along the continental coastlines tend to have larger, more established environmental justice communities, as well as political environments that are more accepting of environmental justice reforms. Municipalities typically work towards environmental justice using six strategies:
Bans: Banning specific land uses or industries is a direct and effective way to prevent harmful human activities that put humans and the environment at risk. For example, California’s Oakland region issued Ordinance 13385 in 2016 which stopped coal loading, unloading, storage, stockpiling, and handling within the city. This benefited environmental justice communities who would have faced the greatest environmental burdens and health repercussions from coal facilities.
Environmental Justice Policies and Programs: Establishing policies and instituting programs that affect local decision-making are another way municipalities further environmental justice. An example can be seen in San Francisco’s Environmental Justice Program, which includes a diverse set of steps and programs to promote environmental equity within the city. Those include the creation of parks and open-space areas, a Community Health Plan, and millions of dollars in community grants to nonprofit groups helping vulnerable individuals.
Review Processes: Before a proposed urban development project (e.g. buildings, roads, etc.) can be constructed and put into operation, review processes must first be carried out in order to assess its environmental impact. Municipalities aiming to reduce local environmental injustices often add an environmental justice component to the review process, ensuring that new developments do not disproportionately impact communities already burdened by poor environmental quality. For example, Cincinnati’s 2009 Environmental Justice Ordinance states that all proposed development projects within the city must first obtain an environmental justice permit from the Cincinnati Office of Environmental Quality before operation can begin.
Proactive Planning: Anticipating future city development requires special foresight and planning. Some municipalities address environmental justice by creating comprehensive guides and goals that promote the development of cities in an environmentally equitable way. For example, Eugene, Oregon’s 2013 Envision Eugene Development Plan guides policies for land use planning that consider environmental justice goals.
Targeting Existing Land Uses: Environmental injustices are commonly a result of past permitting of toxic facilities, decades of economic disinvestment, and poor enforcement of environmental standards. It is relatively easier to plan appropriately and prevent environmental injustices from occurring than to deal with existing land use issues. Sometimes, the environmental burdens faced by marginalized communities are so difficult to tackle through land use and zoning approaches that other methods become necessary. Instead, municipalities can utilize targeted mitigation efforts such as the phasing out of harmful land uses, ensuring stronger code enforcement, and creating buffer zones.
Public Health Codes and Policies: Cities adopt and enforce codes that protect citizens from various forms of pollution. These forms of pollution include soil water, and air pollution, and can also include other forms such as noise pollution, odor pollution, and light pollution. One example of cities using health codes to advance environmental equity can be seen in San Francisco’s Health Code Article 38. For new residential construction projects located in areas with poor air quality (commonly areas with large minority and low-income communities), this code protects public health by requiring the installation of stronger ventilation.
Image 4.1: This image from the Natural Resources Defense Council highlights the diversity found in local policies that work towards environmental justice. Although this image is not comprehensive of all local environmental justice policies within the United States, it shows the presence of bans, proactive planning, and other types of reform in various parts of the country.
State Policies
State-level involvement to address environmental injustice can take similarly diverse forms as those seen in local governments. Statewide bans on certain activities, strengthened review processes, establishments of environmental justice programs, and more, are commonly seen in states committed to furthering environmental justice. Some examples of states promoting environmental justice include:
New York: New York’s 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act is one of the world’s most ambitious climate laws, and a monumental environmental justice effort. As written in the law, actions aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions “should prioritize the safety and health of disadvantaged communities, control potential regressive impacts of future climate change mitigation and adaptation policies on these communities, and prioritize the allocation of public investments in these areas.”
Oregon: In 1997, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality adopted an Environmental Justice Policy in order to ensure environmental equity within the state. Some of the principles outlined within the policy included contaminated land cleanups in marginalized communities, encouraging public feedback for the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, and supporting local environmental justice groups.
California: In 2016, California became the first state to require environmental justice considerations within general city plans. It also provides environmental justice communities with financial benefits taken from the state’s cap-and-trade program on greenhouse gases.
Figure 4.2: This image, taken from a 2021 study on state trends in environmental justice legislation, details which states adopted, or are attempting to adopt, laws that promote environmental justice. Although less than half of all states have fully enacted environmental justice regulations and policies, many others have attempted to do so as well.
National Policies
The federal response to environmental justice issues has not historically been as direct and ambitious as policies found on state and local levels. Environmental justice was first federally validated through Executive Order (EO) 12898, which was signed by President Clinton in 1994. This order instructed federal agencies to identify environmental injustices, implement environmental justice strategies, and promote political participation in decision-making processes. Among EO 12898’s more notable contributions towards environmental equity was aligning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with environmental justice goals. Although its initial creation in 1969 did not discuss environmental justice, NEPA now strongly encourages federal agencies to consider environmental justice implications before taking any major federal actions or activities.
More recently, the Biden Administration has made strides towards a more environmentally equitable country that is unmatched by past presidencies. In order to protect communities with less political power, Biden has guided agencies to direct funding for environmental justice advancements, incorporated environmental justice goals into environmental reviews, and more. Biden has embraced environmental justice in a way no prior administration has, and many are hopeful that his steps will continue to reduce the environmental burdens experienced by the country’s vulnerable communities.
Challenges: Climate Change
Climate change poses new environmental justice challenges that disproportionately impact already-vulnerable communities. Oftentimes, those who produce the fewest greenhouse gas emissions experience climate change’s greatest risks. Some of the new climate change-related challenges include:
Higher wildfire risks
Extreme high heat levels
Greater heatwave frequency
Greater hurricane severity
Increased flooding severity
Extreme low temperature levels
Reduced agricultural yields
Stronger droughts
Rising sea levels
Increasingly dangerous winter storms
Challenges: Wealth Inequality
The wealth divide among upper-income families and middle- and lower-income families has risen sharply over the last few decades. Increasingly severe income inequalities between different classes of Americans puts many citizens at an environmental disadvantage. As previously discussed, being low-income or homeless makes one more likely to experience poor environmental conditions such as polluted air, water, and soil. Additionally, as the wealth divide pushes more Americans further into poverty, it reduces their ability to access the decision-making process that shapes the environment in which they live.
Figure 4.3: This image, taken from a 2020 Pew Research Center study, details the increasing wealth gap between American economic classes. Over the last few decades, it is evident that upper income families hold significantly more wealth than years prior, meanwhile lower and middle income families have seen little to no increase.
Challenges: Political Party Conflict
The United States is a hyperpolarized nation, with Democrats and Republicans often finding themselves at opposite ends of many conversations, including those involving environmental justice. According to a 2014 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the last few decades have seen more Democrats align with consistently liberal beliefs, and Republicans with consistently conservative beliefs. Partisan animosity is also on the rise, with more Democrats and Republicans harboring highly negative opinions of the opposing party. This hyperpolarization is not only apparent among everyday American citizens; it is especially evident amongst the elected officials who shape the country’s laws and policies.
Restricting funding for the EPA, including its environmental justice programs
Relaxing coal ash regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Because power plants that produce toxic coal ash are usually located in environmental justice communities, this decision had negative implications for vulnerable residents nearby.
Removing the ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with harmful health impacts that primarily impact low-income farm workers.
Cutting funding for environmental law enforcement, creating opportunities for environmental injustices to go unnoticed and unmitigated.
In contrast, the current President Joe Biden expressed a strong commitment to delivering environmental justice early in his presidency. Within the first 90 days of being sworn into office, he:
Signed Executive Order 14008 to address climate change and environmental justice issues
Created two White House councils in order to address environmental justice implementation
Appointed Michael Regan as head of the EPA, who aligned all EPA offices with environmental justice goals
As evidenced by the last two administrations’ stances on climate change and environmental justice, Democrats and Republicans generally do not share similar beliefs and priorities regarding these issues. Without bipartisan agreements and cooperation, progress towards environmental equity may become increasingly difficult to achieve.
Image 4.4 – This image illustrates how the American public has become increasingly politically polarized over the last few decades. Beliefs shared by members of both parties became more divided, with Democrats expressing more consistently liberal opinions and Republicans expressing more consistently conservative opinions.
Further Reading
An examination of environmental justice under the Trump Administration:
The Policy Alternatives and Reforms section discusses recent and ongoing efforts to reduce environmental inequities in the United States, and suggestions for how to adequately address environmental injustices moving forward.
Recent and Ongoing Efforts Within the United States
As of September 2020, New Jersey is now home to one of the United States’ strongest pieces of legislation combating environmental injustices. In September 2020, Governor Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill 232. This bill made it mandatory for certain facilities to undergo a comprehensive review of public health impacts on overburdened communities before an operational permit can be issued. Because this law ensures that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection will deny permits to facilities who disproportionately harm vulnerable communities, it is a large and historic step towards environmental equity within the state.
In March 2021, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed a Climate Law aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting overburdened populations. This new legislation seeks to achieve Net Zero emissions by 2050, and mandates environmental impact assessments for any project that may affect air quality in vulnerable communities.
Six Georgia Representatives recently introduced House Bill 432 in February 2021. If approved, this law would be Georgia’s first-ever piece of legislation that directly addresses environmental inequity. The bill aims to create Georgia’s first Environmental Justice Commission, a group of 22 individuals from diverse backgrounds who analyze facilities across the state and their environmental justice impacts. The Commission would also publicize their findings, and guide legislative efforts it deems necessary to mitigate the burdens faced by disadvantaged communities.
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker recently reintroduced a Congressional bill looking to advance environmental justice goals on a federal level. In August 2021, Booker reintroduced the Environmental Justice Act, stating that “clean air and clean water shouldn’t be luxuries for the privileged”. The bill seeks to advance environmental justice by codifying and expanding EO 12898, requiring cumulative impact analyses under the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, Congressionally authorizing environmental justice grant programs, and more.
Improving public transportation to provide rural and/or car-less individuals with better access to grocery stores
Building affordable, government-owned grocery stores selling fresh produce in regions with food deserts
Preparing for Climate Change-Related Disasters
Relocating low-income housing projects away from regions especially vulnerable to flooding
Ensuring proper evacuation of environmental justice communities when faced with wildfire risks, hurricane warnings, etc. through improved public transportation and other evacuation assistance programs
Providing housing for disadvantaged individuals facing severe property damage and/or loss following natural disasters
Monetary Support
Provide financial compensation to residents facing health consequences associated with environmental injustices
Reduce poverty and financially uplift disadvantaged communities
Financially aid the relocation of vulnerable individuals and families living in environmentally harmful/risky regions (e.g. within a close proximity to waste incinerators)
Repurposing abandoned/underutilized urban lots to create green spaces in disadvantaged communities
Valuing Marginalized Voices
Mandating discussions with tribal governments/indigenous communities before making decisions that affect their lands
Spreading Awareness
Encouraging schools to educate students on environmental justice
Reflection Questions
How important is environmental inequity to you? Would you vote for a candidate who did not share your views on this issue?
Can you name any instances where environmental injustices impacted your life/the life of someone you know?
Are you satisfied with the level of attention and political energy environmental justice currently receives? Would you like to see more/less of it?
Do you believe one answer to environmental injustice is increased government intervention and creating more environmental regulations?
Would you consider environmental justice to be in the top tier of your political priorities?
How has your opinion on the importance of environmental justice as a policy issue changed, if at all?
Make Your Voice Heard
Taking action to promote environmental equity does not have to be a daunting task. In fact, there are many ways one can stay involved and bring about meaningful change.
Continue to stay educated: Understanding and continuing to update your knowledge of environmental justice is a powerful first step towards environmental equity. There are many tools you can use to stay informed on environmental justice issues. A few examples are:
The EPA’s environmental justice resource webpage: Includes a long list of websites you can visit to learn more essential information relating to environmental justice.
The EPA’s EJSCREEN mapping tool is one you can use to explore environmental injustices within your community and beyond.
The EJAtlas is a tool you can use to research documented environmental justice issues around the world.
Educate others: Help spread the message of environmental justice by sharing this page and additional ACE resources, such as the environmental justice brief.
Vote for political candidates who prioritize environmental justice.
Contact your representatives: Call or email your House Representative and Senators and tell them you want them to consider environmental justice concerns.
Sample email: Dear [Their name], My name is [Your name] and I am a resident of [your district/state]. I am very concerned about ongoing environmental injustices and I want to see concrete steps to effectively work towards a more environmentally equitable future. The main reforms I would like to see are [list your main issues, for example: making environmental justice analyses mandatory, adequately informing marginalized community members of the environmental risks they face, etc.]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you will take the matter seriously.
Donate or volunteer for elected officials who prioritize environmental justice. Some examples are:
Report environmental violations that you or someone you know has encountered
Support the groups working towards environmental justice: There are many organizations who work to elevate marginalized voices and organize/advocate for more environmentally equitable conditions. You can support them by donating, volunteering, and sharing their content so that it reaches a wider audience. A few examples of such organizations are:
Environmental justice can take on one of two meanings. First, it is commonly used to describe a field of study concerned with the disproportionate environmental burdens and risks experienced by disadvantaged communities. Researchers studying environmental justice often investigate how land use plans, pollution, emergency preparedness, climate change, and other environmental issues unfairly afflict the country’s most vulnerable individuals.
Second, environmental justice can also be used to describe the growing social movement aimed at reducing environmental inequities. The Environmental Justice Movement works to promote and achieve both social justice and environmental conservation goals. Advocates also fight for improvements in the social participation and political engagement of marginalized groups. Greater input from disadvantaged communities ensures that their voices are heard by policymakers, and allows them to shape the decisions that directly affect their lives.
1.2 Environmental Racism
Environmental racism is a concept that stems from the study of environmental justice. Environmental racism falls under the scope of environmental injustices, but is a more specific term that describes environmental inequities arising from one’s race. Dr. Robert Bullard, the father of environmental justice, defines environmental racism as “any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.”
1.3 Climate Change
Climate change describes the long-term changes to Earth’s wind, precipitation, temperature patterns. Current observable changes in the global climate are largely attributable to human activity, such as fossil fuel combustion and other greenhouse gas emissions. These gases enter the Earth’s atmosphere where they absorb heat and radiate it back towards Earth’s surface. Climate change contributes to rising global temperatures, stronger heat waves, drought, sea level rise, destructive hurricanes, and a host of other negative effects. Climate change is an environmental justice issue because its resulting environmental challenges will disproportionately impact already-vulnerable communities.
1.4 Reforms
Political reforms are attempts to improve systems, policies, institutions, or practices that are seen as unsatisfactory. Many environmental justice advocates fight for political reforms that reduce the environmental burdens and risks experienced by disadvantaged communities.
1.5 Grassroots Movement
Grassroots movements are political campaigns organized by everyday people. Through the use of collective action, grassroots groups fight for political change on the local, state, federal, and even international level. Grassroots groups in support of environmental justice continuously work to improve government regulations, environmental policies, and political participation amongst underrepresented groups.
1.6 ColonialismColonialism refers to the violent political and economic control of one country/territory over another. Colonialism aims to exploit dominated regions economically and occupy them with settlers. During colonialism, colonizers often force their religion, culture, language, and economic systems upon the colonized. Today, the United States’ legacy of colonialism continues to harm indigenous communities and the lands they inhabited for millennia
