[ 李恒译 ]——(2007-3-27) / 已阅15281次
GREEN JUSTICE: A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
NICOLE C. KIBERT
Environmental injustice is a phenomena that occurs in the United States and around the world in which people of color and of lower socio-economic status are disproportionately affected by pollution, the sitting of toxic waste dumps, and other Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). This paper addresses the historical and philosophical backgrounds of environmental injustice and reviews potential legal, practical, and philosophical solutions for achieving environmental justice. Initially “environmental justice” was referred to as” environmental racism” because of the disproportionate impact on people of color; however, it is now clear that environmental health risks are foisted predominately on lower income groups of all racial and ethnic groups. In order to be inclusive, as well as to avoid the extra baggage that comes with calling an act “racist,” practitioners almost exclusively use the term “environmental justice” rather than” environmental racism.” Though a discussion regarding nomenclature may seem superfluous, in the context of a discussion of the origins and strategies for achieving environmental justice its actually integral. The way that a society assigns a connotation onto of a word’s denotation has an enormous impact on how a phrase will be interpreted by the general public. Use of the term” environmental justice” is a step in bringing the issue of constitutional right to live in a healthy environment for all people– not just to those who are interested in racial equality.
II. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines” environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group - including racial, ethnic rococo economic groups - should bear a disproportionate share of the
Negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, cal, and tribal programs. Many studies have shown that, over the past 20 years, minorities - African Americans in particular - are more likely to live-in close proximity to an environmental hazard. Unfortunately, there are many examples to choose from to illustrate this observation. Colin Crawford, in his book, “Uproar at Dancing Creek,” discusses in great detail the efforts of an entrepreneur to site a new hazardous waste facility in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Conspicuously, when Crawford compared Noxubee County with other counties in Mississippi, he found that it had the highest annual average unemployment rate from 1970 –1993, a high rate of functional illiteracy with only 51.34 percent of its adult population having high school diplomas, and by far the lowest per captaincies in the region. In addition, of the 12,500 people who lived in Noxubee County, 70 percent were African American and poor. Crawford found that sitting of a hazardous waste dump in this poor, largely Minority County was not an accident, but a calculated campaign. It pitted the poor African American majority and whites against the minority, but politically powerful, white population in false promise of economic development that would bring new jobs. As Crawford stated, “people who most often bear the dangers of living near the excreta of our acquisitive industrial society are thievery same ones who have been most abused throughout our history.”
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT
The official history of environmental justice is approximately 20years old. In 1979, in Houston, Texas, residents formed community action group to block a hazardous waste facility from being built in their middle-class African American Neighborhood. In 1982, environmental justice made news in Warren, North Carolina when a protest regarding the sitting of a PCB landfill in a predominantly African American area resulted in over 500 arrests. The Warren protest was followed by a report by the General Accounting Office which found that three out of four landfills in EPA Region 4 were located in predominately African American areas, even though those areas comprised only 20 percent of the region’s population. An additional report addressing environmental injustice was published in 1987 by the United Church of Christ entitled ‘Toxic Waste and Race in the United States’ which “found that the racial composition of a community – more than socioeconomic status – was the most significant determinant of whether or not a commercial hazardous waste facility would be located there.” The People of Color Environmental Leadership Seminar was held in 1991 in Washington D.C. and was attended by 650 people from around the world. The attendees adopted a set of “principles for environmental justice” that were circulated at the Earth Summit in1992 in Rio de Janeiro. In 1992, the EPA established an Environmental Equity Workgroup. On recommendation from this group, the EPA started an Office of Environmental Justice. In1994, the Center for Policy Alternatives took another look at the United Church of Christ 1987 report. They found that minorities are 47 percent more likely than others to live near hazardous waste facilities. The latest initiative in environmental justice occurred in 1994when President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12898 which ordered federal agencies to comply with Title VI for all federally funded programs and activities that affect human health or the environment. Title VI states, “No person in the United States, shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Though overdue by environmental justice activist standards, President Clinton’s recognition of environmental justice increased government accountability, for which they were arguably already responsible, but now there was a clearly articulated standard.
IV .ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
The degradation of the environment is fundamentally tied to the disproportionate burden placed on the disenfranchised members of our society: minorities, women, and the poor. Several environmental philosophies have emerged – among them Deep Ecology, Ecological Feminism, and Bioregionalism – to attempt to explain how it became acceptable to exploit the environment while endangering the health of certain groups of humans in the name of economic development. In this section, a brief review of these ecological philosophies, as well as an examination of industrial risk analysis, are presented as possible explanations for the origins of environmental injustice. Industries and governments use risk analysis to determine whether to allow projects to move forward. “When landscapes and ecosystems are regarded as commodities, then members of an ecosystem, including human beings, are treated as ‘isolated and extractable units.’” Industrial risk analysis determines how much exposure is acceptable in terms of “one-in-a-hundred-thousand or one-in-a-million additional ‘acceptable’ deaths for toxic chemical exposure.” While neutral on its face, risk analysis serves as a means for justifying disproportionate treatment for some” acceptable” percentage of an exposed human population. However, this method is fundamentally flawed because there is no set standard for which tests to use in determining risks. Therefore, extremely different conclusions can be reached about the same risk depending on which tests are used. When a potentially hazardous project is being proposed, if it is a well-organized and economically well-off community, the community members will be able to come up with their own risk analysis numbers showing an unacceptable risk resulting in permit denial. However, if the negative impact is going to fall mainly on people who are not able to fight back, then the project will most likely go ahead with a risk analysis showing unacceptable risk by the permitting agency. There are alternatives to risk analysis that will be discussed infra, in the solutions for achieving environmental justice section. Deep Ecology is an ecological philosophy that places humans within the context of ecological systems rather than outside or central to the system. In addition, humans are considered to be equal, not superior or more important, in value to other components of an ecological system. It is a science based philosophy in that it is based on the connections of an ecological system, but it is also a true philosophy in that it encourages humans to delve “deep” into their fundamental values. Arne Ness, considered the father of Deep Ecology, has developed a set of seven tenets which, when considered together, would form a type of ecological consciousness. The fourth tenet focuses on anti-class posture. “Diversity of human ways of life is, in part, due to (intended or unintended) exploitation and suppression on the part of certain groups. The exploiter lives differently from the exploited, but both are adversely affected in their potentialities of self-realization.” Naess and supporters of Deep Ecology believe that if we could focus on the impact of all of our actions on everything in the system (and importantly place humans within the system) that we could achieve social justice and live in harmony with the environment. Another one of the tenets is to fight against pollution and resource depletion. Taken together, these two tenets describe environmental justice: to treat all people equally while reducing pollution. Naess believes that when one of the tenets is considered independently problems will arise, and either the environment or a class of people will suffer. Therefore, Deep Ecology requires inclusive, open thinking rather than the current industrial risk analysis focus that we now predominately use when determining whether to allow a polluting industry to develop or continue, or when determining where they can dump their hazardous waste.
There is a small but growing section in the ecological philosophy movement called “bioregionalism” that envisions a redrawing of political boundaries to follow the contours of local ecosystems.” The globalization of modern culture has contributed to the spread of institutional values which threaten cultural and ecological diversity.” This movement believes that it will be necessary for people to begin functioning on a regional level in order to preserve the environment and protect ourselves from the affects of polluting industry Bioregionalisms call this ‘living in place.’ Bioregionalism means that “you are aware of the ecology, economy, and culture of the place where you live, and are committed to making choices that them.” More radically they believe that people need to live in a sustainable way that involves living in regional units that provide for its inhabitants while co-existing with the natural ecosystem. Environmental injustice occurs because the emphasis for development is often not based on local needs or the preservation of cultural or biological diversity. When the emphasis is on the industrial needs, rather than cultural or ecological needs, environmental injustice is destined to occur some eco feminist theorists have stated that the feminization of nature is what started the ability to degrade the earth and people without regret. Popular environmental slogans state “love your mother.” However, equating the earth and nature to a woman can have negative consequences in a patriarchal society that does not respect women. A recent Earth First! Slogan illustrates the problem: “The Earth is a witch, and the men still burn her.” As an environmental movement we definitely do not want to encourage the idea that mother earth will absorb everything we lob at her without asking anything in return. “Mother in patriarchal cultures she who provides all of our sustenance and who makes disappear all of our waste products, she who satisfies all of our wants and needs endlessly without any cost to us. Mother is she who loves sand will take care of us no matter what.”
NICOLE C. KIBERT
环境的非正义经常发生在美国和世界其他地区的低收入人群之中,由于他们经济地位不高，所以更容易受到环境污染的影响，如有毒废料在这种群体中的传播以及对当地不需要的土地的利用(LULUs)等等，这是一种环境不公正是现象。本文从历史和哲学的角度来探讨环境不公道的现象和回顾潜在的法律, 实践，且从哲学的角度来解答如何达到环境正义。 最初的"环境正义" 是首先在"环境种族主义"提到的。它是对不同颜色的人的不均衡的冲击与歧视。但是, 现在的情况是确切的环境健康风险被蒙骗在更低的收入种族和族群中。为了将"环境种族主义"包含在“环境正义"之中，并且避免叫此行动为"种族主义者的额外行李"实践者几乎完全规定" 环境正义"相当于环境种族主义"虽然一次讨论关于命名原则也许似乎多余, 但就讨论的状况起源和战略上来讲，为达到环境正义，它实际上不可缺少。社会分配方式对公众关于一个词组的理解有着极大的影响。"环境正义" 是指依据宪法给予的权利，所有人民都应该居住在一个健康的环境之中，而不仅仅局限于种族平等。
美国环境保护代办处对"环境正义" 下的定义是：所有人民应当受到公平的对待和有效地介入到环境发展, 环境法章程和政策的实施和执行之中。不管种族, 颜色, 原国籍, 或收入。 公平对待意味没有小组，包括没有种族, 没有种族洛可可式的经济集团。对环境污染的责任，大家应该负担一个不均衡的份额。消极环境后果起因于工业，市政, 商业操作或施行的联邦、部族节目。许多研究显示：在过去20 年中, 少数非裔美国人特别容易遭受到由于环境污染而引起的危害。不幸地, 有许多例子可供选择来说明这种情况。Colin Crawford, 在他的书里, "跳舞小河的骚乱"中谈论到了那些了不起的企业家在努力选址的过程中将一种新的有害废料设施安排在密西西比的Noxubee 县。显眼地, 当Crawford 将Noxubee 县与其它县比较时, 他发现在1970 年-1993年间，它有最高的年平均失业率, 功能文盲也以一种高速率在增长。在其最低的captaincies区域，成人人口的百分之51.34 只有中学毕业证书。 另外, 12,500 人民居住在Noxubee 县, 百分之70 是非裔美国人和贫寒。 Crawford 发现了有害废料转储在这个贫寒县不主要是意外事故, 而是一次故意的竞选。少数非裔美国人，多数是白人, 在政治上强有力, 白人说这样会带来新工作机会，经济发展回更快的假的诺言。 如同Crawford 陈述, "谁经常忍受工业社会排泄物而在这种危险的环境之中生存的人往往是被历史忽略的人。"
环境正义的正式历史起源于20多年前。1979 年,在休斯敦, 得克萨斯, 居民形成社区活动小组阻拦一种有害废料设施被修造在他们的中产阶级非裔美国人聚居地。1982 年, 最有新闻价值的关于环境正义的报道发生在北卡罗来纳。当一个抗议关于PCB 垃圾填埋在非裔美国人地区的会议取得了完全成功。 Warren的抗议报告发现了会计办公室的垃圾填埋在非裔美国人地区。虽然那些区域只有百分之20 住人。1987 年一个另外的报告演讲环境的不公道被出版了。由基督教会授权的"有毒废料和种族团结的教会"发现在团结的状态的社区是没有一种商业有害废料设施不会在那里被找出的。1991 年"颜色环境领导研讨会在华盛顿D.C.举行， 并且有世界各地650 个人出席了该会议。到会者采取了被散布在地球山顶的在里约热内卢的一套"环境正义"的原则。1992 年, EPA 建立了一个环境产权工作小组。由这个小组推荐, EPA 建立了环境正义办公室。1994年, 政策制定中心看了看基督团结教会在1987的报告， 他们发现少数人种比其他人多百分之47 的可能居住在有害废料设施附近。 最新的主动性环境正义发生在1994克林顿总统发布的行政命令中。第12898 文件下令联邦政府机关遵照标题VI ，杜绝所有联邦被资助的节目和活动影响人类健康或环境。标题VI 表明："没有人将在美国的地面，受到种族, 颜色或原国籍的歧视从而被排除, 被否认而得不到好处,大家都有权根据任一节目或活动接受联邦经济援助。"根据环境正义活动家标准, 克林顿政府增加了政府责任, 为那些争论已经负起了责任,现在有了一个清楚、明确的表达标准。
环境的退化的负担根本上被不均衡地安置在我们的社会的不同阶层: 少数民族, 妇女, 和贫寒人口。从而涌现了环境哲学，在他们之中有深刻的生态主义, 生态学女权主义者都试图解释怎么使环境污染以经济发展的名义危及特定人群健康的时候变得可接受。在这个部分, 对这些生态学哲学进行简要的回顾, 并且对工业风险进行分析检测, 提出了环境不公道的起源可能的解释。产业和政府使用风险分析确定是否允许项目进行。"当风景和生态系统被认定为商品, 然后生态系的成员, 包括人, 被认为是被隔绝的和可取的单位。"工业风险分析确定是可接受的根据"。但是, 这个方法是根本上有缺陷的因为没有测试使用在确定风险的集合标准。所以, 极端不同的结论可能是使测试与不测试达到大致同样的风险。当一个潜在地危害项目被提议, 如果这是在一个组织完善和经济上充裕的社区, 社区成员能产生他们自己的风险分析数字显示一种不能接受的风险造从而否认许可证。但是, 如果负面地影响使得人们无力还击, 该项目很可能在先前的风险分析显示不能接受的情况下被允许。他们将有选择性地对风险分析进行讨论，来达到环境正义。本质的生态是安置人在生态学系统而不是在外部或中央之内的生态学哲学。另外, 人被认为是平等的, 没有特权和贵贱, 按价值对一个生态学系统的其它组分。生态系统的其他价值是基于其哲学价值的，而哲学价值又是以生态系统本身为根本，并且他又是一个哲学理念，那就是鼓励人们将这一本质作为其基础价值。Arne Ness,深刻生态主义之父, 开发了一套七条原则，当组合在一起时, 会形成一种生态学意识。第四个原则焦点在反类姿势。"人的生活方式变化, 一部分是由于(意欲的或不愿意的) 开发和镇压在某些小组而形成。开发与剥削不同, 但两个均有害地影响了认识自我的潜在性。"深刻生态主义者Naess 和他的支持者相信如果我们能将所有的影响我们的一切行动在系统中集中起来。(重要地是安置人在系统之内) 那我们就能达到社会正义和居住与环境一致。另外一个原则则是与污染和资源怠尽做斗争。将其结合起来, 这两条原则就描述了环境正义: 相等地对待所有人民，努力减少环境污染。Naess 相信这两个原则当中的一个独立地出现时, 一部分环境或人类将遭受污染。所以, 深刻的生态要求包含的，开放的思维与价值观比起我们经常使用的工业风险分析来确定是否允许污染产业出现或继续,或确定何处他们能倾销他们的有害废料的方法要好得多。有一个影响小但正在增长的部分在生态学哲学中叫做" bioregionalism"的运动正在侵蚀着政治经济系统。 "现代文化的全球化对文化的传播和生态学价值的变化作出了贡献。这运动相信, 对于人们而言将非常有必要开展一种机制来保存环境和保护自己免受污染产业影响。Bioregionalisms 认为这叫居住到位。 Bioregionalism 意味着 "您意识到生态, 经济, 和您居住地方的文化, 并且承诺做出他们的选择。"他们更加根本地相信,人们需要一种能够与之相邻的自然生态系相共生的一种能承受的方法。环境不公道的发生主要是因为为发展经济经常不根据地方需要或文化或生物变化而开发。当着眼于工业需要, 而不是文化或生态学需要时, 环境不公道则像女权理论家阐明的那样将贬低地球和人民的能力而没有遗憾。普遍的环境口号陈述为"爱您的母亲"。然而, 视同地球和自然像妇女一样使我们忽略了一种消极的后果，那就是我们在一个家长式社会中而不尊敬妇女。最近地球首先 喊出一种口号: "地球是妓女, 男人仍在奸污她"。正如我们正在进行的环保运动一样，大地母亲将吸收一切我们抛投在她那里的东西并且没有要求任何东西的回报。 "母亲在家长式文化下提供所有我们的生计并且吸收我们的废品, 她无限制地满足所有我们的需要而不计我们任何的费用。不管我们是什么，大地母亲都会像爱他的儿子一样爱护我们。