Kerrin Cha
Envr Pol 212 Final Paper
Dec. 6, 2023
Mitigating Environmental Efforts in Collaboration with Local Communities
Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
groups, regardless of race, class, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Yet in the context of our economy,
social systems, and natural resource distribution, various inequalities and injustices arise. Just
some patterns of environmental inequality that we continue to see include disproportionate
burden on marginalized communities, unequal access to clean and running water, indigenous
land rights, and toxic waste management.
Some examples in the past decades of disproportionate environmental impact include the
2014 Flint water crisis, the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984 in India, Chevron oil spills in indigenous
lands in Ecuador, and the 1988 North River Sewage Treatment Plant in West Harlem to name a
few. Systemic failures of public infrastructure, disregard of marginalized voices, and insufficient
government response are all unfortunate yet stark connecting factors among the events stated
above. Environmental policy decisions and project developments have time and time again
disproportionately affected minority communities. With the connection between socioeconomic
barriers and distribution of adverse environmental impact, how can continued environmental
efforts be mitigated to address natural problems without aggravating systematic patterns of
inequality?
Historical Context: Economic Factors Driving Social and Environmental Cycles
Fuller understanding of the modern day issues of environmental efforts for marginalized
communities across the globe first requires understanding of the historical context between
economic driving factors and their ties to environmental resources. European exploration and the
resulting race for colonization of the newly discovered lands and resources within the Western
Hemisphere helped to fuel the rise of capitalist systems within Europe during the 16th and 17th
centuries (Blaut, 1989). While in the search for valuable commodities like gold, silver, spices,
and land, European protocapitalists were able to plunder significant capital and resources from
colonies, setting up an economic foundation for capitalist institutions to arise. Further,
exploitation of colony territories for their natural resources fundamentally transformed the
relationship between humans and nature, as commodification of labor and resources began on a
global scale.
From a world-systems theory perspective, combined effects of capitalism and
globalization lead to the concentration of environmental issues within already economically
disadvantaged nations. First developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, the theory views
the capitalist world economy as a whole that can be split into core and periphery regions
(Martínez-Vela, 2001). The core-periphery relationship is structural, placing one within a capitalintensive production state and the other in a labor and resource intensive providing state; semiperipheral states exist as buffers between the two by mixing actions and institutions. From an
environmental perspective, these heavy global economic implications provide interesting insight
into the set up of the current global environmental crisis (Barbosa, 2009). Previously established
colonial relations generally transformed into a different relationship of exploitation, where
nations gained autonomy yet are still constrained within a system of resource and labor
exploitation.
In explanation of global capitalism and its relation to global environmentalism, Barbosa
explains the treatment of natural resources and its sale from periphery to core regions. When sold
from periphery to the core, natural resources are irreplaceable sources that when depleted, create
economic underdevelopment like economic instability and poverty as the periphery loses its
natural assets. Major environmental problems today, like deforestation, mining, habitat
destruction, and air pollution, can be explained through this process. Core nations have a built
dependence and high demand on periphery regions to sustain their high levels of consumption
and economic growth. This economic relationship not only causes a resource extraction and
exploitation issue, but perpetuates environmental justice and unequal access to environmental
benefits on the global scale. As a result of the problems that arise from loss of natural resources,
periphery countries experience disproportionate environmental harm. Due to the economic
disparities and underdevelopment they experience, periphery nations have lesser access to
environmental benefits like cleaner air, water, and greener space, yet are at an economic
disadvantage to build the infrastructure and systems necessary to mitigate those environmental
rights.
This global pattern can also be applied to smaller scale relationships, as seen by the
disproportional environmental effect on marginalized communities within the US. Domestic
environmental issues have a distinct connection to minorities and socioeconomic status.
Previously mentioned environmental crisis like the 1988 North River Sewage Treatment Plant,
the 2014 Flint water crisis, or additional issues of unaddressed uranium radiation on Native
American reserves, and the concentration of industrial facilities and waste disposal sites in
minority communities represent only a fraction of the plethora of environmental injustices that
affect the country.
Studies show that while countries in the EU, the United States, Canada, Australia, and
Russia are some of the biggest contributors to global carbon emissions, they do not experience
the brunt of the health, economical, and ecological effects of climate change as the communities
in Global South or indigenous communities do as they have more resources to mitigate the
effects felt and autonomy to direct environmental consequences. (Pellow & Brehm, 2013).
Similarly, this pattern of producers dodging their self-made consequences is present within micro
communities. Studies found that neighborhoods with lower median incomes, levels of education,
higher poverty levels, and larger populations of color were the most heat-stressed in Phoenix,
Arizona; yet, they had much less resources to combat their environmental conditions compared
to their higher income, higher education level, and Anglo population counterparts.
Changing economic and social cycles throughout history have kept similar relationships
with the environment: natural resources are further commodified while those already
marginalized are left to bear the brunt of environmental degradation.
Socially Constructed Definitions of Nature
With these obvious socioeconomic ties to environmental justice, it is important that we
track how the socially constructed definition of nature within a period shapes the environmental
movement. By doing so, we can begin to formulate plans for environmental policies and efforts
that are better accepted in public perception yet also efficient and impactful. By the late 20th and
early 21st centuries, sociologists began to introduce the idea that nature is not a static, objective
reality, but a socially and culturally constructed concept. Nature’s foundations within scientific
knowledge were brought into question, and instead, sociologists began shifting focus towards
society’s negotiations and interactions with nature through a lens of ecology and environmental
history (Bird, 1987).
By now examining the social interactions with nature driving environmental effects, the
environmental movement began to shift from a largely science-based to social justice based
movement. Changing the perception and lens through which we viewed nature and the
environment introduced a more inclusive and socially aware understanding of environmental
issues. To keep up with these changing social perceptions around environmentalism, policy and
economic thought entered an environmental discourse called ecological modernization (EM)
(Ali, 2013) and the treadmill of production (TOP) theory was developed.
The two being somewhat antitheses of one another (Barbosa, 2009), they differ in their
assessments of the feasibility of achieving sustainability within our existing socio-economic
systems. EM presents a generally more optimistic view, believing that environmental
sustainability can be achieved within existing systems through technological adaptation and
institutional adaptation. On the other hand, TOP heavily criticizes capitalism and our
consumerist society, viewing its inherent drive for growth and profit as a detrimental deterrent of
sustainability. In its pessimism, TOP also advocates for greater dramatic social change and
economic organization in order for true environmental sustainability to be achieved; in its
pessimism, TOP is not entirely wrong. For instance, most market-based policies and
technological advances in renewable energy sources implemented by governments in efforts to
mitigate carbon emissions have unequally benefited citizens. Through unintended consequence,
ecological modernization policies can end up perpetuating and reproducing social inequality
(Carrosio & Vidovich, 2021), yet TOP presents a dramatic solution of social reconstruction that
our global economic system would be unable to implement in any timely fashion.
The Possibility of Eco-Welfare States
To mitigate these clashing issues of capitalist influence and social inequality within
environmental efforts, researchers have begun crossing the domains of welfare states and
environmental states into “eco-welfare states” (Gough, 2015). Gough outlines a framework for
understanding state intervention in developed capitalist economies. Eco-welfare states refer to
government systems able to not only address social issues through welfare policies but also
integrate environmental concerns within that process. It would prioritize improving people’s
well-being within a strong focus on environmental sustainability and protection.
Without doubt, various arguments can be made against the implementation of such ecowelfare states. Some problems and concerns that may arise include, but are not limited to,
possible increases of government spending and taxes, arguments of government overreach,
protest from economic sectors that would be most impacted, and general skepticism of
effectiveness. Yet, if the eco-welfare state and mindset is adopted across the different levels of
government and state, levels of trust and specific local action can be enacted to help address
concerns of local inhabitants. This top-down approach also enables higher levels of government
to greater focus on equitable allocation of resources to help confront socioeconomic polarizations
from the environmental stance.
Climate and environment justice movements have for many years seemed to have
approached a global stalemate on action (Foran & Widick, 2013). There does not need to be a
complete turnover of our economic systems, yet there is undoubtedly a need for some levels of
system change at both the national and local levels if actual environmental action is to be
implemented, followed, and impactful outside the patterns of socioeconomic inequality.
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, located on the Isthmus of Panama, and its
Agua Salud Project recently signed the Rohr Reforestation Initiative alongside Indigenous
leaders from the Ngäbe-Buglé Comarca. After many talks, negotiations, and conferences with
the local leaders and the Centro de Estudios y Acción Social Panameño (CEASPA), a
Panamanian environmental and social-justice oriented NGO, agreements were reached regarding
tree-planting projects to help fight carbon emissions while benefiting the indigenous and local
communities. This agreement and project proves an important point: with proper discussion and
respect of local land, environmental rights, and economic balances, effective action can be
reached. The Rohr Reforestation Initiative integrates science-based research efforts to mitigate
carbon emissions in tropical forests while actively contributing to local economic development.
If such efforts are successful and similar methodology adopted across organization levels, drives
toward an eco-welfare state or greater environmental equity and health can be made.
Conclusion
Environmental justice underscores the urgent need for fair treatment and inclusion of all
communities in environmental decision-making. From historical exploitation driven by economic
factors to current disparities in global environmental impact, marginalized communities
consistently bear the brunt of environmental degradation. The evolution of the environmental
movement from a science-based approach to one rooted in social justice reflects changing
perceptions of nature, with theories like ecological modernization and the treadmill of production
offering opposing views on achieving sustainability within existing socio-economic systems.
The concept of "eco-welfare states" emerges as a potential solution, integrating
environmental concerns into social policies to prioritize well-being with a focus on
sustainability. While objections may arise, such as concerns about government spending and
skepticism about effectiveness, the top-down approach allows for equitable resource allocation
and addresses socio-economic polarizations. Initiatives like the Rohr Reforestation Initiative
demonstrate that effective action can be taken through discussions, respect for local contexts, and
the integration of science-based research. Embracing eco-welfare states at various organizational
levels offers a promising path to achieving environmental equity and health without exacerbating
systematic patterns of inequality.
Citations
Ali, M. (2013) Sustainability Assessment. Chapter 5 - Issues of Sustainability Assessment. 59-71.
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407196-4.00005-2.
Barbosa, L. C., (2009) Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. Theories in Environmental
Sociology, 25-43.
Bird, E. A. R. (1987) The Social Construction of Nature: Theoretical Approaches to the History of
Environmental Problems. Environmental Review: 11(4): 255-264.
Blaut, J. M. (1989). Colonialism and the Rise of Capitalism. Science & Society, 53(3), 260–296.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40404472
Carrasio, Vidovich. (2021). Can Ecological Modernization Bring About a Just Transition. OECD
Development Matters. https://oecd-development-matters.org/2021/10/22/can-ecologicalmodernisation-bring-about-a-just-transition/
Foran, J., & Widick, R. (2013). Breaking Barriers to Climate Justice. Contexts, 12, No. 2, 34-39.
https://www-jstor-org.turing.library.northwestern.edu/stable/pdf/41960451
Gough, I. (2015, August 12). Welfare States and Environmental States: A comparative analysis.
Taylor & Francis Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2015.1074382
Martínez-vela, C. A. (2001) World Systems Theory. MIT
https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/WorldS
Pellow, D. N., & Brehm, H. N. (2013). An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century.
Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 229–250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43049634 ‘
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. (2022) Indigenous Reforestation
https://stri.si.edu/story/indigenous-reforestation