SMU – PHIL 3379 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – FALL 2023 – JEAN KAZEZ – eesmu.blogspot.com

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

MODULE 2: Not in my backyard

 AGENDA

  1. Recap Cole and Foster
  2. Start discussing Wenz 




"Environmental racism"

  • Is it really useful to talk about it? Or does it perpetuate stereotypes?
  • This phrase is constantly used--e.g. in the New York Times -- google search
  • What is the most coherent way to use this concept? When does it apply?

Cole and Foster vs. Opponent
  • C&F: A racial disparity counts as environmental racism whenever the problem is environmental and the cause is racism; such causes are common.
  • Opponent: such causes are rare; mostly disparities are caused by lifestyle choices and market forces



Peter Wenz, "Just Garbage" (2001)

What is he saying about environmental racism? He writes....
  • "Environmental racism is evident in practices that expose racial minorities in the United States, and people of color around the world, to disproportionate shares of environmental hazards." (p. 444)
  • Without acknowledging for a moment, then, that racism plays no part in the disproportionate exposer of nonwhites to toxic waste, I will ignore this issue...." (p.. 445)
  • Section heading: A Defense of Current Practices.  He is not supporting this defense, he's countering it!  
What are the current practices?

EPA Toxic Releases Inventory LINK
Best Neighborhood LINK
Look at race and income


Defense of current practices (that he's countering)
  1. It's on the basis of economics that some neighborhoods have more LULUs.
  2. These neighborhoods happen to be more non-white.
  3. So there's nothing unjust or racist going on!
Wenz's response to this: even if it were true that disparities are primarily economic,  there's injustice.  The injustice is that....
  • Poor people consume less but are exposed to more environmental hazards
  • Rich people consume more but are exposed to fewer environmental hazards
WHY IS THIS UNJUST? Answer: the PCBB (below)




Wenz proposes:
Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits
"Other things being equal, those who derive benefits should sustain commensurate burdens." (p. 446) 
  • Commensurate=appropriate, proportional
  • Any exception requires a good justification
Things that are just, under PCBB (Wenz's examples)
  • Benefit: receiving money. Burden: working
  • Benefit: owning something. Burden: having tort liability
  • Benefit: consuming goods.  Burden: exposure to toxic hazards associated with products (unjust to shift this burden onto someone consuming less or not at all)
Any apparent exception to PCBB must be justified (Wenz's examples)
  • Benefit: inherited wealth.  Burden:  none for the person inheriting (justification: the person bequeathing works)
  • Benefit: giving gift.  Burden: none for the receiver (justification: the person giving the gift works)
  • Benefit: unemployment compensation.  Burden: none (justification: good for the society)
Things that are unjust, under PCBB (Wenz's examples)
  • Benefit: executive salary (earning $150,000 per minute--Jeff Bezos) Burden: working hard (incommensurate because he can't be working that hard)
  • Benefit: consuming goods. Burden: _________ (no landfills or toxic factories or toxic waste anywhere near you)  
Paying high prices as a burden (what would he say?)
  • Benefit: eating a nice dinner.  Burden: paying $100 for it. Is this illegitimate on his view?
  • Benefit: living far from toxic hazards.  Burden: paying high rent/mortgage.  Is this illegitimate on his view?
Need to look at the section called "Free Market Approach." The free market approach says that we can pay our way out of burdens, if everyone consents.  But he says we can't always do that.  

EXAMPLES:

  • Benefit: being a citizen.  Burden: having to be conscripted in time of war. (Can't pay someone else.)
  • Benefit: being a citizen. Burden: jury duty. (Can't pay someone else.)
  • Benefit: having a child.  Burden: carrying it and giving birth. (Can't pay someone else just to avoid the discomfort.)
  • Benefit: consumption.  Burden: exposure to toxic hazards comes with creating or disposing.  (Can't pay more to live in a wealthy neighborhood to avoid.)
"The major problem with this free market approach is that it fails to accord equal consideration to everyone's interests. Where basic or vital goods and services are at issue, we usually think equal consideration of interests requires ameliorating inequalities of distribution that markets tend to produce." (p. 450)

Next time: how to implement PCBB when it comes to environmental waste and hazards.