It is clear to us that the way we live on this planet is not conducive to sustaining it and keeping it hospitable for future generations – but what is the current impact of environmental neglect on low-income communities?
People who live in low-income communities often bear the burden of environmental problems: since April 2014, the city Flint, Michigan has faced the plight of water contamination with high concentrations of lead leaching from old water pipes.
This happened as a result of the water source being changed to the Flint River, in order to provide for the growing population – almost 100,000 citizens were subjected to contaminated water.
Some time after this was discovered, the town city returned to its previous water source of water, but the damage had been done: 6,000-14,000 children had consumed water with high lead concentrations; the effects of this include problems with mental as well as physical health, and a higher chance of experiencing Alzheimer’s disease in later life.
According to the 2010 census, the population of Flint is 57% African American and over 40% of the citizens are under the poverty line.
In January 2016 – after almost two years of crisis with reported lead contamination in homes and alarmingly discoloured tap water, the Governor declared an emergency and officially apologised for the crisis.
The dismissal of consistent apprehensions from the community manifests the disregard the government officials had for the community, and it is argued that had this crisis occurred in a predominantly white community, the response would have been much more proactive.
For example, in Charleston, West Virginia, the city’s water supply was contaminated with crude oil, affecting around 300,000 citizens.
The action taken was swift – on the same day as the oil spill an emergency was declared and by the fifth day after the incident, the disuse on drinking water was able to be lifted.
This stark difference in response shows how affluent, white districts are provided with more resources and more political attention.
This appertains to a wider trend: racial segregation has placed certain communities in proximity to industrial zones and dangerous facilities because of practices such as redlining.
For example, in Watts, Los Angeles, the estimated Hispanic population is 80% and Black population 16%.
During the 1930s, the population was predominantly Black and the area was considered ‘hazardous’. Now it is a lower-income area within Los Angeles and residents are exposed to polluting gases, which can induce respiratory diseases, as a result of industrial facilities such as the Atlas Iron and Metal recycling plant.
Areas such as Watts lack the political pull to resist the imposition of these hazardous facilities, and as such, environmental protections are obeyed less effectively.
Combatting environmental injustice can be achieved by enforcing more stringent regulations on the emissions from industrial facilities and campaigning for politicians to take this into consideration; rich companies should not be acquitted from their harmful actions to the community.
The Clean Power Plan implemented by President Barack Obama epitomises the necessary action to reduce carbon emissions, in this scenario.
Furthermore, citizens who live in redlined zones should be granted with adequate investment in infrastructure, particularly in impoverished areas.
Policies such as the Green New Deal proposed in 2019 intended to reduce reliability on non-renewable energy in the US to 0%, as well as to invest in programmes to support housing availability and to create green jobs.
Unfortunately, this was never brought to fruition due to disputes in Congress.
As well as combatting pollution, environmental injustice necessitates acknowledging the effects of redlining and assisting marginalised communities who face higher risks of environmental hazards.
Ensuring better environmental protections for all communities will not only ameliorate environmental health but also social justice, creating a more equal world.
