EcoRes Forum

[Administrator]

Discussion Themes
Definitions & differentiations; Examples; Historical foundations; Symptoms & causes; Players & platforms; ...
_________________
<i>Thank you for being part of this forum! -- The EcoRes Forum Team</i>

[MLeyser]

Greetings all, and welcome to the EcoRes Forum. Today we begin a journey, a journey in search of wisdom, a journey in search of ways and means to apply this knowledge. As we travel, we’ll be seeking to understand two very important and interrelated concepts: environmental justice and climate justice (EJ/CJ). Along the way, we’ll have the chance to talk with respected activists and researchers in the field and the opportunity to make connections that will last much longer than this two-week discussion.

Yvo de Boer stated the overriding ethical quandary: <i>"The most vulnerable communities in the poorest countries, those who have contributed nothing to climate change, will be the worst affected by its impact."</i> We already have some ideas about what achieving EJ/CJ means at the highest level, what it will require, and whom it will affect. Within these fields are additional definitions, all based on underlying principles of justice and equality, whether across racial, class, or political lines, whether to resources or from toxins, whether in this generation or decades down the road.

While some argue that these ideas are utopian-based idealisms that hold no place in our market-based societies, others vehemently disagree, arguing that we will not be able to successfully and sustainably address the challenges of climate change without fully incorporating the principles of EJ/CJ in all related decision- and policy-making.

Here our journey begins.

We’ll start by searching for common ground in our definitions, identifying examples from around the world, and identifying key players and platforms. From there, we’ll move along our agenda, looking at current approaches and identifying what is (and isn’t) working for the EJ/CJ movement. In our third segment, we want to take a tough look at some of the particularly provocative aspects of EJ/CJ – from personal, core beliefs that may have to be challenged (looking at ethics, racism, classism, and so on) to lifestyles that may have to be changed (think: contraction & convergence), and more. As our journey draws to a close, our forum will be working to identify what we can and must do with this new knowledge in our respective roles and circles of influence.

Recognizing that these topics delve into deeply rooted and potentially incendiary areas, we request that all participants exercise extreme sensitivity as our discussion proceeds. We can never solve these issues until we can talk about them openly, maintaining respect for each other even when we disagree with individual stances. To do so requires great delicacy and diplomacy. Please think twice before you type (if in doubt, check the posting guidelines). Intercultural communication 101: Assume the best of others, give the best of yourself, be doubly sensitive to others, and less so to yourself. Let’s turn this journey into a productive, border-crossing, bridge-building experience.

Whether you’re joining us for the plenary discussion as outlined above or stopping by to visit some of our outstanding breakout sessions, we’re delighted to have so many from such different fields and walks of life joining the group. As stated earlier, <i>“These are the initial boundaries we must cross: Thank you for being a part of this transdisciplinary initiative!”</i>

The Forum is now open. To learning, to sharing, and to understanding: Welcome!

<b>NEXT: CJ/EJ: Not for the faint of heart!</b>
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[MLeyser]

<b>Climate Justice / Environmental Justice: Not for the Faint of Heart!</b>

Climate justice and environmental justice, which have been inextricably linked to sustainable development and social justice issues, are not concepts for the faint of heart. They are complex, their facets myriad. At their foundations lie principles of individual and national equity, ethical “fairness”, the familiar “common but differentiated responsibilities”, equal representation, and much more. Optimists look at the present situation and see an opportunity to address long-standing, deep-rooted social and economic inequities, while pragmatics point out that ‘the devil is in the details’. Meanwhile, pessimists argue that these patterns are too deeply embedded to be changed, or simply step away from the debate, disengaging from what, to them, seems a lost cause.

One source describes the work and goals of the EJ/CJ movement:

<i>“The EJ movement illustrates strategies that link issues of toxics and public health, worker and community safety, land use, housing and transportation, and economic development with environmental sustainability. This multi-issue, integrated approach relies on a range of strategies – direct organizing, coalition building, education, research, legal and advocacy, media, and policy development – and serves as a potential bridge for greater alliances with other social change movements to build power at the local, regional, state, national and international arenas.”</i> (“Building Healthy Communities from the Ground Up,” Martha Matsuoka, 2003, Online: http://www.environmentalhealth.org/BuildingHealthyCommunities.htm)

What does this mean? Let’s consider some of the many definitions given for the concepts of EJ/CJ…

<b>NEXT: Climate justice/Environmental justice: Thoughts & definitions</b>
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[MLeyser]

<b>CJ/EJ: Some thoughts and definitions</b>

<i>"Global warming, or climate change, is fundamentally an issue of human rights and environmental justice that connects the local to the global. With rising temperatures, human lives—particularly in people of color, low-income, and Indigenous communities—are affected by compromised health, financial burdens, and social and cultural disruptions. Moreover, those who are most affected are least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that cause the problem—both globally and within the United States. Climate justice is a movement from the grassroots to realize solutions to our climate and energy problems that ensure the right of all people to live, work, play, and pray in safe, healthy, and clean environments."</i> (1)

<i>"Climate justice addresses global warming by looking at who is hurt, how they will be hurt, and who is responsible", while climate injustice constitutes "stealing from the global commons".</i> (2)

<i>"A condition of environmental justice exists when environmental risks and hazards and investments and benefits are equally distributed without direct or indirect discrimination at all jurisdictional levels and when access to environmental investments, benefits, and natural resources are equally distributed; and when access to information, participation in decision making, and access to justice in environment related matters are enjoyed by all."</i> (3)

<i>"Moving from Carbonacracy (dominance by the carbon industry and their allies in the rich governments) to Climate Justice is about more than addressing inequity in pollution. Climate Justice is about addressing inequity in POWER, which starts with addressing inequity in crafting environmental policy. That to me means shifting leadership on climate policy from the US/EU environmental mainstream, toward environmental visionaries from the Global South and indigenous people’s voices…"</i> (4)

<i>"We believe that social and economic equity between and within countries lies at the heart of all solutions to climate change. These must include: A Just Transition to renewable energy sources, ie. a transition which doesn't fall hardest on low income communities, communities of colour or low income employees of industries reliant on fossil fuels; Repayment of the ecological debt of the north to the south. Ecological debt is caused by the extraction, use and destruction of southern resources such as fossil fuels, minerals, forests, marine & genetic resources. These resources are usually exported to the north under unequal terms of trade, typically to pay back third world debt. Northern industrialised countries have an obligation to help repair and reverse the damage caused to the biosphere; Equal access to, and responsibility for, common global resources amongst all peoples."</i> (5)

Before considering some examples, here’s one definition of how environmental INJUSTICE appears:

<i>"An environmental injustice exists when members of disadvantaged, ethnic, minority or other groups suffer disproportionately at the local, regional (sub-national), or national levels from environmental risks or hazards, and/or suffer disproportionately from violations of fundamental human rights as a result of environmental factors, and/or denied access to environmental investments, benefits, and/or natural resources, and/or are denied access to information; and/or participation in decision making; and/or access to justice in environment-related matters."</i> (3)

<b>Think about it:</b> What would you add to these definitions? Which parts do you find most applicable in your local area? Where did you first learn of EJ/CJ? Do you think these concepts are being adequately addressed in mainstream media channels? Why or why not?

<b>Next: The human faces of injustice</b>

(1) Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, Online 20 Dec 07: http://www.ejcc.org/
(2) FOE Australia, Online 15 Jan 08: http://www.foe.org.au/climate-justice/issues
(3) CEE Workshop on EJ, Budapest, Dec 03; Some excerpts also online at: www.naaee.org/conference2006/ej-cultural-history-strand-description.pdf
(4) C Brian, Blog, Online: 20 Dec 07: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/13/climate-justice-or-carbonacracy/
(5) Rising Tide UK Political Statement, Online 20 Dec 07: http://risingtide.org.uk/about/political
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[MLeyser]

<b>EJ/CJ: The human faces of injustice</b>

Climate change has been declared, officially, a human rights issue. How do we know? The UN Human Rights Council says so – passing a resolution to that effect just last month (March 2008). In the cases of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, this extends all the way to the right to life. In this case, it’s easy to draw linkages to the idea of justice. How about in these cases?

<b>Diverted water sources</b>: Due to irrigation and dams Lake Chad has shrunk to 10% of its original size. Bordering Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria, this lake provides water to 20 million people. Correction: Provided. (1) According to a study in the Journal of Political Economy, there is "a strong link between droughts in sub-Saharan Africa and civil wars in the region. Global warming will make droughts even more severe… Of 43 countries studied, nearly 70% experienced civil war in the 1980s and 1990s." (2)

<b>Food shortages and rising prices</b>: In 2005, the world’s grain production fell 4% short of consumption. This trend has continued, with prices expected to hit record highs in 2008 as new ethanol distilleries come online. For countries and consumers that depend on these resources, this spells disaster (US corn exports in 2005 represented 70% of the world total). Lester Brown: "By the end of 2007, the emerging competition between the 800 million automobile owners who want to maintain their mobility and the world’s 2 billion poorest people who want simply to survive will be on center stage. …[F]ood riots and political instability in lower-income countries that import grain, such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Mexico, and scores of other countries, could disrupt global economic progress.</b> (3) Today, corn meal prices in Mexico are up 60%, while flour prices have doubled in Pakistan. Result: Demonstrations in Pakistan, Mexico, Italy, Indonesia. Brown: "The World Bank reports that for each 1 percent rise in food prices, caloric intake among the poor drops 0.5 percent. Millions of those living on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder, people who are barely hanging on, will lose their grip and begin to fall off." (4)

<b>Sinking fast: Small islands</b>: By 2050 the Tuvaluan nation is expected to be history, as islanders, now "climate refugees", are forced to seek shelter in neighboring countries whose immigration policies have been none too welcoming. Rising sea levels have already left water resources "too salty to drink and to grow vegetables." Food and water must be imported, leading to increased consumption and waste and health issues. (5) For the refugees: Who’s responsible for training individuals whose previous careers required only climbing coconut trees and catching fish? (6) For promoting integration and community and cultural support? For caring for those for whom this isn’t possible? If Tuvaluans were inclined: Whom could be held responsible for this deplorable destruction? (7)

<b>Cultural minorities</b>: "When Dalits or 'untouchables' in Bihar, India, were disproportionately affected during the 2007 floods, relief took a long time to reach them and when it did they were subject to blatant discrimination in the aid distribution process..." (8)

<b>Arctic lifestyles threatened</b>: "In the Arctic, where the atmosphere is warming twice as quickly as in the rest of the world, there are currently some 400,000 indigenous peoples… who traditionally herd reindeer as a way of life. The thinning of the Arctic ice has [] made reindeer herding tracks dangerous, forcing people to find new routes. Many aspects of Sami culture…are intimately linked with reindeer herding…'climate change is threatening the entire Sami, as a people'." (8)

<b>Mitigation measures can bring additional problems</b>: "Indigenous people point to an increase in human rights violations, displacements and conflicts due to expropriation of ancestral lands and forests for biofuel plantations… as well as for carbon sink and renewable energy projects (hydropower dams, geothermal plants)… [I]nstances include the case of a Dutch company whose operations include planting trees and selling sequestered carbon credit to people wanting to offset their emissions caused by air travel. In March 2002, its project was certified by the Forestry Stewardship Council and from 1999 to 2002 over 7,000 hectares of land were planted in Uganda. The Ugandan Wildlife Authority, responsible for managing all national parks, forced indigenous people to leave the area. Forced evictions continued to 2002, leading indigenous people to move to neighboring villages, caves and mosques. Over 50 people were killed in 2004." (9)

<b>Small farmers vulnerable</b>: In the Amazon: "An increase in climate anomalies like El Nino could ultimately drive many small farmers to ruin, forcing them into Brazilian cities that may be ill-equipped to employ, house and feed them." (10) In Nicaragua, farmers in some areas lost up to 80% of their crops due to changing rain patterns. With the crops went homes and wells. With the rain came rats, disease, and contaminated water. (11) Elsewhere in Nicaragua, low rivers (their roads) can’t be navigated, leaving villages cut off from essential supplies like drinking water and salt. (12)

<b>Infrastructure woes in poverty-stricken areas "least responsible" for climate change</b>: "Up to 30 per cent of Africa’s coastal infrastructure could be inundated as sea levels rise. Especially vulnerable are parts of Senegal, Gambia, Egypt, Cameroon and Nigeria, while towns and cities under threat include Cape Town in South Africa, Maputo in Mozambique, and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Away from the coasts, meanwhile, wetlands such as the Okavango delta in Botswana and the Sudd swamp on the Nile in Sudan could dry out." (13)

<b>Mining and health</b>: Liangqiao, in southern China on the Hengshui River, is called a "cancer village". Thirty-five miles upstream is the nationally owned iron-ore mine Dabaoshan. Environmental lawyers state that the mine has been polluting the river for decades, with villagers having a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the country. Compensation to villagers to date: About 1,700 Yuan (US$200). (14)

<b>Urban/rural pockets of poverty threatened</b>: "Studies are showing that if you are poor anywhere in the world, you are more at risk from the various hazards environmental degradation poses than your more affluent peers. According to UNEP, in Los Angeles more than 71 percent of African Americans live in "highly polluted areas," compared to 24 percent of whites. Across the U.S. [African American] children are three times more likely to have "hazardous levels of lead in their blood" as a result of living near hazardous waste sites." (15) In New Orleans, the French Quarter may be alive and well, but the neighborhoods destroyed by Hurricane Katrina remain desolate, deserted. One-time inhabitants are still housed in formaldehyde-filled trailers – "toxic tin cans" – unless they’ve struck out on their own with little to no support.

<b>US/Arizona</b>: Hopi, Navajo, Zuni, Havasupai, Hualapai and Apache tribes are working together to protect areas sacred to their cultures and to "protect drinking water supplies by stopping Peabody Coal Co. from pumping the N-Aquifer; get SRP (Arizona's largest utility company) to drop plans for the Fence Lake Coal Strip mine; and to protect groundwater identified by the tribes as critical to their survival." (16)

<b>US/Louisiana</b>: Citizens in "Cancer Alley" are battling to protect their communities from chemical emissions and toxins that inundate the area due to unregulated industrial activities. The source: "hundreds of petrochemical and other industrial plants along the shore of the Mississippi from Baton Rouge to New Orleans." The residents: "…mostly poor and African American… [O]ver the years there have been disproportionate rates of environmental illness, ranging from cancers to miscarriages that have led to lawsuits and the abandonment of entire communities." (17, 18)

<B>US/Central Appalachia</b>: Mountaintop removal and other devastating coal mining practices are destroying the homes and health of area residents, who are left to deal with flooding, contaminated water, deforestation, and more. These areas include some of the most poverty-stricken in the nation. Local populations, primarily mine workers, must often choose between equally distressing options, paying a high price if they speak out. (19)

<b>THINK ABOUT IT</b>: What defines a situation as EJ/CJ related? Can you share examples of environmental and climate injustices in your area?

<b>NEXT: Open for discussion </b>

(1) “Planet in Peril”, script, CNN, 30 Oct 07
(2) “Warming makes civil war more likely”, Solutions, Vol 38, No3, June 2007, p 11
(3) -, Lester Brown, Online 2 Apr 07: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/update60.htm
(4) “Why Ethanol Production will drive world food prices even higher in 2008”, Lester Brown, Online 8 Apr 08: http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69_printable.htm
(5) “Endangered Islands”, Hilary Whiteman, CNN, Online 8 Apr 08: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/31/tuvalu.climate/
(6) “Living on Earth”, NPR interview with Tuvalu residents, Transcript, Online Apr 08: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00013&segmentID=6
(7) For a case study on Tuvalu, see: FOE’s “A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Refugees”; Online at http://www.foe.org.au/resources/publications/climate-justice/CitizensGuide.pdf
(8) “Minorities ‘hardest hit’ by climate change,” Paul Eccleston, Telegraph, 11 Mar 08, Online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/11/eaminor111.xml
(9) “Indigenous peoples hardest hit by climate change describe impacts,” Terry Collins, UN University, Press Release 2 Apr 08, Online at: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/unu-iph040108.php
(10) “Climate change threatens Amazonian small farmers”, Indiana University, Science Daily, 27 Mar 08 Online; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326081114.htm
(11) “Climate change hits the world’s poor”, Eileen Clarkson, Oxfam, for BBC, 8 Feb 08, Online http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7235290.stm
(12) “Poor are sidelined on climate change solutions”, Elisabth Rosenthal, Intl Herald Tribute, 18 Mar 08, Online: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/business/greencol19.php
(13) “The poor will pay for global warming”, Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 11 Nov 06, Online at: http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19225774.600.html
(14) “Red river brings cancer”, Transcript, CNN, 30 Oct 07, Online: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/10/23/pip.china.pollution/index.html
(15) “Rich, poor and climate change”, Rachel Oliver, CNN, 19 Feb 08, Online: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/17/eco.class/index.html
(16) Sierra Club EJ Projects Arizona, 8 April 08, Online: http://www.sierraclub.org/environmental_justice/projects_az.asp
(17) “Rising up from a toxic legacy”, Living on Earth Transcript, 8 April 08, Online; http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=05-P13-00036&segmentID=2
(18) Sierra Club EJ Projects Louisiana, 8 April 08, Online: http://www.sierraclub.org/environmental_justice/projects_la.asp
(19) “Moving Mountains”, Erik Reece, 16 Feb 06, Grist/Main Dish, Online: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/02/16/reece/
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[W Byrnes]

Byrnes Post #1:

In her comments dated Thursday, April 10th, under the topic of "The Human Faces of Injustice," Mary Leyser writes about the small farmers of Brazil who already have been adversely affected by climate change through the more frequent occurrence of El Nino events, which is linked to global warming. In some cases, crops have withered, wells have run dry, and farmers have been forced to migrate to cities. It is probable that the situation will grow worse in coming decades as the climate crisis deepens.

An experience my family and I recently had caused me to reflect on this situation, and on the role we in the North and West might play in causing it. At the end of March, my wife, two daughters and I went on a ten-day vacation to Belize, Central America. During the trip, we stopped in San Ignacio, which is near the western border with Guatemala, and made a daylong excursion across the border to see the ancient Mayan ruins at Tikal. The road to Tikal passes through Peten, a lovely rural district in which most of the inhabitants are subsistence farmers who live along the road, but travel daily on horseback to their farms located in the hills and mountains some distance away. We could see dirt paths meandering up and down the shoulder of the road; these paths were used by inhabitants to travel by horse from one house to another. Much to the delight of my daughters, who have a fondness for horses, we even passed a young boy herding three mares horses and a colt.

It was a beautiful, cool day near the beginning of the dry season. Apparently, a rare La Nina event (the opposite of El Nino) had led to the pleasant weather pattern we were experiencing.

Very few vehicles seemed to travel the road; most that did were either delivery or construction vehicles, or vans carrying tourists going to and from Tikal. No cars were parked at houses; no junk cars dotted the yards; and little or no trash could be seen along the roadway. I learned from our tour guide that the inhabitants of Peten, descendants of the ancient Maya, have lived this way for centuries. Their life--quiet, simple and close to the land--is one that uses very little energy and therefore does not contribute in any significant way to the global climate crises that is upon us. And yet, like the displaced peoples of Brazil and Nicaragua whom Mary Leyser mentions, these people may suffer greatly in the decades ahead.

Here is the question I ask myself: Is this fair? Is it fair for these people to suffer because of my energy-intensive lifestyle? Is it right for me to allow the greenhouse gases that result from my choices to reach out and destroy someone else's life? Clearly the answer is No. For me, it is the injustice of this situation that compels me to strive to change my behavioir and lobby others to change theirs. It really is a matter of justice--climate justice in this case.
_________________
W. Malcolm Byrnes, PhD
Howard University College of Medicine
Washington, DC
wbyrnes@howard.edu

[L Canton]

The definitions and examples are good, thank you. To me it is of interest how some places might have different definitions. Also it is a little hard to combine EJ and CJ for me, but I feel how that they are linked on the biggest scale. The hardest I think is to make people care when their lifes seem far away. I hope everybody can talk on this when we talk about challenges. I need some ideas.

I have not visited Belize. It sounds lovely, but also sad for them. Like Tuvalu – that is a big interest for me. It is how I first learned of CJ.

Please, I like to ask the Berlin women with GENDER CC to tell what they do. (Sorry if this is the wrong place.) Do you have a mail group?

Ciao, Liza

[J Bendik-Keymer]

Hi everyone. I hope you're doing well in your parts of the world. Here in the UAE, it is close to AC time, the time of year when to work during the day some kind of cooling system is needed. Because buildings are not built to use shade and wind, and because the time of the global market does not fit ecological time (with, for instance, a long siesta in midday), AC is the default coolant. Here is one reason the UAE has such a large ecological footprint.

I have a comment and a question based on the definitions so far.

1. The comment: I think that to define environmental injustices against humans, it is important to conceptualize the ecological nature of humans. In what ways do humans relate to their ecological environment to the benefit of their good or to the avoidance of their harm?

The comments above mark out relations that contribute to our health, and relations that contribute to our culture or cultivation. Simply put, there are material and ideological human-ecosystem relationships that open us to potential injustices because the relationships contribute to our good or keep us from harm.

The justice part of environmental justice is handled by what justice is, i.e., by the right theory of justice. But the environmental part of environmental justice is handled by conceptualizing our ecological relationships so that any potential good or avoidance of harm can be seen. Mapping out these important relationships then gives us a map of the way humans might suffer an environmental injustice, once justice enters the scene.

So, I'd recommend a two-tiered approach to the question. First, map out our ecological nature in terms of benefits we derive from ecological relationships; second, obtain the right theory of justice. See how the first tier can arise in the second tier's domain.

2. The question: Can we do injustice to non-humans, e.g., to other animals on this planet? If so, how should environmental injustice be re-conceptualized?

Climate change is likely* to bring about grave consequences for millions of humans this century and has been placed as a possible explanation for grave consequences already affected some parts of the world (e.g., drought in Africa). I am not diminishing this.

But if we can do injustice to non-humans living on Earth, it is highly likely that the scale of our injustice will far exceed what we could do to each other. We should be facing that.

Speaking loosely now, and stepping back, it seems extremely bad of us to be such a mess that we create a mass extinction for the planet's myriad forms of life. I'm tempted to say it's extremely unjust. At the least, it's vicious. Not only do we destroy and stunt each other, but we wreak havoc on all those other forms of life that has often very little at all to do with us, except when they're trying to deal with the changes we've caused.


* Here adopting the probabilistic language of the IPCC reports.

[MLeyser]

Hello all – Malcolm, Liza, welcome back to the Forum – and thanks for sharing the examples of Belize and Tuvalu.

Jeremy raises some good points. I’ve read authors recently concerned that the terms “environmental justice” and “climate justice” are wide open in their definitions, and that this ambiguity can lead to misuse by those so inclined. Hence we’re reminded of the importance of definitions, all the more so in intercultural and interdisciplinary efforts, in which terms may be used with quite specific and sometimes conflicting meanings. I’d be curious to hear from our panelists on their approach to this: Has it been an issue in your work, and if so, how have you been able to address it?

For those who haven’t had a chance to check out the breakout sessions, Jeremy and Allen Thompson are hosting a thought-provoking discussion titled “Injustice and Species Extinction”. As touched on above, they’re looking at whether the concepts of justice/injustice can be applied to non-human forms of life, and if so, whether the definition(s) of EJ can/should be broadened. It’s a challenging topic – stop by when you have a chance.

Applying the lens of justice to humanity’s overall impact on the planet, the idea of conscious living comes to mind…
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[Moderator]

In the time remaining for Topic 1, we’ll be considering possible symptoms and causes of environmental and climate injustices, as well as some of the players and platforms involved. This discussion will remain open for all themes within this topic through Monday, 14 April, at which time the topic forum will be closed. There will be some scheduling overlap, as Topic 2, “Current Approaches and What’s Working”, will be opening later today, maintaining opening schedules on New Zealand time.

[MLeyser]

<b>Symptoms of EJ/CJ</b>

I’d like to share some notes from an online Sierra Club course that I sat in on last autumn. Hosted by SC members Bill Price and Rita Harris, the 6-week training was a thought-provoking experience which I’d encourage everyone to consider.

The presenters gave the below breakdown. (Apologies to Bill and Rita if my notes left anything out):

<b>Symptoms/Signs of “justice” include</b>: Equitable treatment, sustainability, good health, safety, community empowerment, quality of life, and grassroots organization.

<b>Symptoms/Signs of “injustice” include</b>: Obvious injustices, emergency management, toxic dumping, air/water pollution, superfund sites (in the US), imbalances of power, and industry practices like mountaintop removal mining.

The Center for Environmental Policy and Law in Budapest shares additional <b>“Key Indications of Environmental Justice Problems”</b> in their brochure Promoting Environmental Justice in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (pdf download), in which they list specifics related to housing, policy, resources, waste management, and more. (For information on EJ/CJ in CEE, see also their newsletter [pdf download].)

The situations described earlier are examples of these symptoms.

What, then, are some of their underlying sources? Read on...

<b>NEXT: EJ/CJ: Sources of Injustice</b>
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[MLeyser]

<b>EJ/CJ: Sources of injustice</b>

Continuing with my SC course notes: Bill and Rita pointed out that aspects of environmental injustice include <b>environmental pollution, poverty, racism, and class inequity</b>, with EJ acting as the unifying link between environmental quality and social justice issues, including human and civil rights issues.

In terms of <b>racism</b>, this involves a combination of power and oppression within systems of dominance, leading to diseased power dynamics. In these systems, racism can be expressed at personal, cultural, and institutional levels.

Regarding <b>class issues</b>, this was first defined as a system of beliefs/attitudes that oppresses or subordinates groups due to ranking according to social class, job position, educational levels, economic status, or lineage, with these divisions being set and maintained arbitrarily by the dominating classes/groups. We would also expand this to include national and political elements.

A point I found particularly thought-provoking: In most if not all cases, addressing these highly complex issues is related to <b>self-work</b> – looking inside ourselves to consider our core beliefs and how we express these beliefs in our various positions. This isn’t something one often hears in decision- and policy-making venues. Bill and Rita raised a good question: Do the groups I/you/we belong to, at whatever level, work to specifically address how these dynamics are playing out in our work and organizations? They most definitely are THERE – the question is, are we conscious of them, and what are we doing to ensure that these dynamics are healthy and that our results truly qualify as just?

Moving on, Rita spoke about how the <b>dominant group determines what is “normal/acceptable” and of worth/value</b>. This can manifest in both obvious and subtle ways. Think about these two examples from the organizational level:

1) An environmental group that doesn't work in a poor community because the group has no members there – thus the group may not feel compelled to act in that area.
2) An organization requiring membership fees and thus limiting participation. (This is also reflected in many discussion and decision-making platforms, involving financial and logistical limits and requiring visa application approval, etc.).

Quickly wrapping up: Some aspects thus far identified across multiple levels include:

1) <b>Lack of awareness/consideration</b> of results of actions/inactions – at all levels from individual to international
2) <b>Denial/rejection</b> of personal/national responsibility (in some cases, tied to a lack of personal empathy, which can also manifest as the “not-in-my-backyard” mentality)
3) General and environmental <b>racism and classism</b>, based on stereotypes
4) <b>Single-focus environmental actions</b> (i.e., expanded biofuel use/development)

In most cases, it seems that injustice arises from a too-narrow perspective. Whether intentional or unintentional , the results are the same. Our objective, then, must be to take a conscious, holistic approach – and to advocate for others to do the same.

<b>Discussion Questions</b>
1) In your experience, what other underlying causes of E/C injustice have you identified?
2) As Bill and Rita asked, who is defining EJ issues in your area?
3) Can you share examples of E/C injustice from your area? Are the issues of race and class being addressed in these situations? Should they be? Why/why not?
4) In terms of climate justice, how do you see these sources and symptoms manifesting at the national and international level?

<b>NEXT: Open for discussion</b>
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[J Bendik-Keymer]

Hi Mary. Thanks for all the distinctions you made in your last post. I like the way thinking about symptoms of justice or injustice helps us think about what justice is. It's another way of helping us map the conceptual terrain.

Your post made me think of a distinction:

One kind of symptom of injustice appears when people commit an environmental injustice against others knowing that the environmental issue at hand hurts people. This is the case, for instance, with environmental racism. Reasonable people know that toxicity, for instance, harms us. Here we have symptoms of biased injustice. There's a bias at work, not an ignorance of ecology.

On the other hand, there could be a kind of symptom of injustice appearing when people are clueless about ecological interactions and their effects. We might imagine an environmental injustice against others ignorant that the environmental issue at hand hurts people. This is the case, for instance, with C02 emissions before knowledge of global warming. When people thought the atmosphere was a limitless sink, there was no bias present in C02 emissions per se (although there was bias in where, for instance, coal plants went and how that affected people's lungs -but C02 leading to climate change was not a conscious issue). Still, we might say that an ignorant injustice was committed -for instance, against the non-industrialized world.

I am not sure whether we admit of an injustice when the agents act ignorantly, especially if negligence was not involved on its part (it couldn't have known about the ecological interaction leading to the harm). Still, there might be a gray area in many cases between injustice from bias and injustice issuing in some measure from ignorance or ideology that keeps people from picturing ecological relationships correctly.

If so, we should look for different kinds of symptoms: on the one hand, biased behavior. On the other hand, ecological illiteracy.

[W Lee]

Greetings everyone-

I wonder if I might add a further distinction to J Bendik-Keymer's response to Mary Leyser's excellent discussion of environmental justice and climate justice, one that raises, I think, another aspect of injustice as well as valuable quetions about where nonhuman beings fit in the EJ/CJ discussion.

JBK draws a distinction between knowing and ignorant actions that generate environmental injustice for human beings (and particularly those most vulnerable to the harmful consequences). But I also wonder to what extent ideologically motivated entitlement may contribute to environmental injustice.

For instance, during a recent edition of the talk show I produce with my colleague here at Bloomsburg University, a caller argued that he had every right to drive his gas-guzzling six tire truck regardless the increasing scarcity of petro or the environmental consequences of its emissions. When I asked him to justify this sense of entitlement, he responded with a clearly ideologically driven mash of what was "god given," what it meant to be an American, and how the "environmental wacko leftists" were looking to "take away his rights."

We might be tempted to think that this is an example of JBK's "knowing," that is, like knowing that building a waste incinerator in an African American neighborhood is wrong-but just not caring-but it's more than that. The caller derives his sense of entitlement from a mix of religious, capitalist, and nationalistic beliefs. They may be racist, classist, etc. but they're rooted in an ideology that privileges precisely folks like HIM. He didn't think HE was the one who's ignorant. In fact, (and on ideological grounds) he specifically attributes this to the environmentalists.

We might then be tempted to think this an example of JBK's "ignorance." But this implies that were the caller adequately educated about the environmental dilemmas we face, he'd change his mind-or at least review his choices. But this strikes me as unlikely-not because education isn't key to addressing EJ and CJ, but because an ideologically driven worldview involves something more than prejudice (though it can surely include it), and-as we see time and time again-is often immune to education.

What I'm suggesting is that while "biased behavior" and "ecological illiteracy" provide two critically important axes of the explanation of environmental destruction, an examination of the ideologies-religious, mercantile, nationalist (not to mention patriarchal and ethnocentric) offers a third axis to this explanatory constellation.

As Mary puts it with respect to the concept of self-work: Part of what a "looking inside ourselves" must include in its examination of our core beliefs are those whose ideological foundations give rise to the very classist, racist, sexist, ect. attitudes and behaviors that have produced injustice.

Including this third axis may also, I think, help us to consider questions relevant to the place of nonhuman animals in this broader discussion. How we treat them is, after all, at least partly a function of how we comprehend their value, and this in turn is rooted in some worldview about our own. The justification for drilling, for example, in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is premised on the belief that we're entitled to whatever petro reserves may be made available, but this in turn assumes that whatever harm is done in the process to the relevant nonhuman animals and their habitats is not an injustice.

Whether harm to nonhuman animals and ecosystems counts as injustice is, of course, a topic that deserves its own discussion. My point is simply that addressing what motivates drilling in ANWR and its harm to nohuman beings and habitat-like many other examples-is not adequately addressed either as an example of knowing bias or ecological illiteracy. We know harm will come AND many advocate to pursue it anyways. Only the ideological motivations that drive entitlement, I think, can fully explain such egregious wrongs.

[J Bendik-Keymer]

Hi Wendy,

Thanks for your post! It made me realize it helps to distinguish between kinds of injustice and causes of injustice. Bias injustice is a kind of injustice, yet it can have many causes -such as the ideologies you mentioned. I could imagine other reasons for bias that include psychological irregularities and partiality coming from sentimental attachments. I agree with you that the ideologies are the tough stuff.

It would be worth taking your pick-up owner from the call-in show and sending his example over to the forum on education or the new plenary stream on best practices where Mary raised the question of education. How does one deal with the network of ideologies you mention? It takes time and a lot of Socratic questioning. Or does one take a psychotherapeutic tack and see a lot of the ideologies are compromise formations issuing from various kinds of insecurities or wounding?

Jeremy

[W Lee]

Greetings Jeremy and everyone,

The distinction between kinds and causes is a very important one, especially where the causes run so deep--like ideological or religious systems of belief. Moreover, I think that the phrase "systems of belief" captures something more than "belief" by itself in that --to take my truck driving caller again--He doesn't think he's entitled to use up a scarce commodity, damage the earth he drives over, and deliver polluting emisions on the basis of just one belief about--well--whatever. These actions are rooted in a system of beliefs that he at least THINKS are consistent with each other--beliefs that have a God, a nation, and a view of the "free" market as their foundation.

Part of what his education surely consists in, then, is getting him to see (a) that this system may well be internally inconsistent. That is, his conception of God and nation may very well not be as seemless as he thinks (and if it is, little distinguuishes him from those who'd commit terroristic acts--whatever religious creed--in the name of that God). (B) getting him to see that some of the beliefs themselves are faulty or false. His view, for example, of the "free" market is just plain false. This, of course, captures something of the Socratic method-and generates often enough the sorts of reactions that got Socrates executed.

The psychological irregularities you mention surely have something to do with the sheer work it takes to maintain a belief system that's internally inconsistent. For example, presidential candidate Barack Obama got himself into some trouble this past few days with a comment he made about how rural folks may cling to "god and guns" when faced with adversity--say in the form of oncoming recession in the U.S.-But Obama is not altogether wrong about this. "Out here" in rural Pennsylvania, this is VERY much what many folks do--despite the fact the psychological, political, and economic sense (and often fact) of isolation this produces is manifestly not in thier interest.

One thing I think I do know, however, is that unless we can reach these folks-and their analogues in every nation and culture-the environmental movement will remain divided between those of us who have a sense of what may be coming-and those whose denial of global climate change is, among other things, a response to fear of what may be coming. And a double denial at that insofar as the denial of global climate change is fueled by the fear generated out of the possibility that the underlying ideology which guarantees precisely the entitlement they cling to ("God and guns") may itself be false....

Wendy

[MLeyser]

Hello Wendy, Jeremy, and all,

VERY interesting conversation here. Two quick comments before I move over to Topic 2...

Re environmentalists, the Socratic method, inconsistent internal paradigms and the power of asking questions: I've heard it argued that eco-activists/academics have done more harm than good when using the tools/methods of the power/elite - that is, TELLING - what critics see as just another form of politically or ideologically based indoctrination or even propaganda. Critical thinking/questioning is certainly something one wants to encourage, yet others are concerned that this may simply take time that the planet does not have - allowing the scales to tip in a very undesirable direction. Might there be a kind of middle ground that adopts the useful and rejects the dangerous of each? Other than leading by example, what might that be?

Something to think about re questioning one's personal beliefs: In <i>The Four Agreements</i> (1997), a book that -- at least on the surface -- seems to be about a quite different topic, Don Miguel Ruiz talks about the "domestication" of society (which also relates to the breakout session on environmental education and taboos), referring to our internal belief system, as structured/socialized from birth, as our "Book of Law":

<i>"Because everything that is in the Book of Law has to be true, anything that challenges what you believe is going to make you feel unsafe. Even if the Book of Law is wrong, it makes you </i>feel safe<i>. That is why we need a great deal of courage to challenge our own beliefs. Because even if we know we didn't choose all these beliefs, it is also true that we agreed to all of them. The agreement is so strong that even if we understand the concept of it not being true, we feel the blame, the guilt, and the shame that occur if we go against these rules."</i>

Ruiz goes on to talk about justice and "false laws", noting that <i>"Ninety-five percent of the beliefs we have stored in our minds are nothing but lies, and we suffer because we believe all these lies."</i>

Hmmmm... Thoughts?
_________________
Mary Leyser, EcoRes Forum (www.eco-res.org)

[W Lee]

Hello Mary, everyone,

It's no doubt right that at some point action must take precedence over yet more thinking, but it also seems incumbent on us (whoever this all includes-itself an important and fraught question) to engage in an ongoing review and revise of our actions. We have little time, yes, but even less time to make mistakes. Inevitably what we're engaged in I think is experimental in the sense that actions-whether at the level of individuals, collectives, or nations-have unpredictable consequences. We know, for example, that some actions-recycling, avoiding waste, personal conservation-are good ideas. But there's a far larger scale of action-involving millions of dollars committed by nations, for instance, whose consequences are far less predictable. What do we press our governments, NGOs, United Nations to DO?

I also wonder where Ruiz gets the notion that 95% of what we believe is wrong. The philosophy of mind literature manifestly does not bear this out. Perhaps Ruiz is referring to--as I was making big whooppee out of earlier--our ideological commitments. There he might be a little closer!

[U Roehr]

[Moderator]

Many thanks for everyone's input in this opening line "EJ/CJ in Brief: Defining the Terms". We've had a variety of interesting thoughts and materials introduced both to get us started as well as to frame the ongoing conversation.

While this thread will remain open for discussion until the end of the e-conference, the plenary discussion has moved on to Topics 2 and 3. See you there!
_________________
<i>EcoRes Forum E-Conference Moderator</i>