SMU – PHIL 3379 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – FALL 2025 – JEAN KAZEZ

Search This Blog

Friday, February 21, 2025

MODULE 2: Environmental Racism

Please sit in reporting groups


 AGENDA
  1. Recap: environmental justice module
  2. Cole and Foster

Module 3: Environmental justice

Three theories of environmental injustice:
  1. Robert Bullard & Luke Cole and Sheila Foster:  environmental racism
  2. Peter Wenz next time: violations of PCBB (we'll see what this is)
  3. Kyle Whyte: kinship disruption
They all agree:
  1. Environmental injustice is a major problem in the world today
  2. Environmentalists should be fighting against environmental injustice
But each theory looks at a different facet of environmental injustice.
  • You could think all three are real...or two...or one...or none
_________________________

Environmental Racism 

Starting point: racial disparities
  • Bullard, "The Mountains of Houston"
  • Dozens of examples in Bullard's SMU slideshow
  • Bullard: racial disparities are greater than economic disparities and not entirely explained by economic disparities
  • What's the evidence?
Next question: should we interpret the disparities as environmental racism?
_________________________

5 minute group meetings --

Unfinished reporting groups--environmental orgs, geoengineering, faking nature, rewilding, recycling
  • Finalize assignments, using the reporting doc
  • I will touch base with each group

Finished reporting groups--invasive, endangered, population, water
  • Browse the evidence about racial disparities
  • Discuss: should we grant there are racial disparities that go beyond economic disparities.

_________________________



Cole & Foster: yes, the disparities should be construed as environmental racism
  • Luke Cole (environmental activist) 
  • Sheila Foster (law professor now at Georgetown)
From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (2001)

They focus on Covanta trash incinerator in Chester, Pennsylvania--biggest one in the country--protests continue today -- article







_________________________

    Cole and Foster's main claims 
    1. There are racial disparities in living environments that go beyond income disparities 
      • Evidence (above)
    2. Racial disparity beyond income disparity is not enough to prove racism
      • Could conceivably be an innocent pattern
      • What are some innocent disparities?
    3. To count as environmental racism, a racial disparity has to be caused by racism
    4. The classic case of "caused by racism" is when siting decisions are made with racist intentions (Bullard calls this PIBBY--put it in Blacks' back yards).
    5. But more commonly disparities are caused by a more "subtle and structural" sort of racism (p. 64)
    _________________________

    Enter: the skeptic Cole and Foster are (implicitly) responding to.  The skeptic grees with with 1-4, but not 5.

    Skeptical argument #1: lifestyle choices (EPA 1992)
    1. Racial disparities are mostly caused by lifestyle choices.
    2. If they're caused by lifestyle choices, they're not caused by racism.  THEREFORE
    3. Environmental disparities are not caused by racism
    EPA's examples 
    1. Minorities are disproportionately exposed to hazards because more choose to live in cities
    2. Latinos are disproportionately exposed to pesticides because more Latinos choose farm labor.
    3. Asians are disproportionally exposed to contaminated fish because more Asians choose to eat more fish.
    C&F REPLY:   We have to ask why? See p. 59A

    _________________________

    Skeptical argument #2: Market forces
    1. Landfills, petrochemical plants, incinerators, etc., are built, which lowers rents; lower-income people then move in, who are disproportionally non-white.
    2. Those are "market forces" not racism. THEREFORE,
    3. Environmental disparities are not caused by racism.

    C&F REPLY: What's their reply?

    _________________________


    Skeptical argument #3: No racist intentions
    1. To sue for environmental discrimination, you must show that a particular person  had racist intentions.
    2. Explicit racist intentions are uncommon today. THEREFORE,
    3. Environmental disparities are usually not caused by racism.

    C&F REPLY: 
    1. As a legal matter, yes, intentional discrimination must be shown for a successful lawsuit. (see p. 63 A)
    2. "the nature of racism has become appreciably more subtle and structural" (p. 64)
    3. Spatial segregation of racial groups is ubiquitous, not innocent, and rooted in racism

    _________________________


    Segregation Info