Minorities & Their Disproportionate Exposure to Toxic Waste
An exploration of the toxic waste exposure racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic minorities face in comparison to the majority.
Minority groups including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans, as well as those who live in chronic poverty, face disproportionate exposure to toxic/chemical waste in comparison to the general population. These groups of people are at a much greater risk of living near toxic waste plants or what are known as “chemical disaster vulnerability zones.” Racial/ethnic minorities who also live in chronic poverty are at the greatest risk of constant exposure to these zones in comparison to their white counterparts. Poor minorities are at such risk to live in these zones because they simply cannot afford to move, and they also can’t afford to take time off work and/or child care to fight against the injustices they face every day.
Background
Decades of research, case studies, and grassroots movements have demonstrated the clear disadvantage and discrimination faced by minority populations and those who live in poverty in regards to exposure to toxic waste facilities. This discrimination is purposeful and has been able to continue for so long because of the limited resources and “political clout” available to communities largely made up of minorities and those who are impoverished (Gaworecki, 2016). An analysis of thirty years of demographic data about the placement of 319 toxic waste facilities determined that these minority communities were in fact targeted by the corporations who placed the facilities (Gaworecki, 2016). This article found that transitional neighborhoods (neighborhoods where wealthier, white citizens were already moving out) are also targeted. This finding is important because it scratches the surface of institutionalized racism and proves that black and other minority-dominated communities are at a greater risk of reaping the consequences of environmental injustice. Poverty is also the largest shared disadvantage of those who suffer from environmental injustice. A study done in Toronto, Canada, found that areas within 2 km of NPRI facilities (national pollutant release inventory) had higher percentages of low-income and/or racialized communities; this “compounded disadvantage” describes the relationship between health and low income and/or minority status, and provides evidence for the relationship between environment and human health (Kershaw, 2013).
Environmental Justice Movements
Richmond, California
Richmond, California: The population in Richmond (located in Contra Costa County) is made up of 80% people of color, with 15% of its citizens living in poverty, despite its close proximity to wealthy Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Richmond is contaminated by the flares and explosions caused by the Chevron refinery, which in 2012 sent over 15,000 people to hospitals for respiratory distress (Cagle, 2019). Children in Richmond have twice the rate of asthma compared to the national average (Cagle, 2019). The citizens have created nonprofit groups (ex. Groundwork Richmond) and filed numerous lawsuits, but Chevron still stands and continues to wreak havoc on the health of the people of Richmond.
Mossville, Louisiana
Mossville was created as a safe space for African Americans during the Jim Crow era, but the once vibrant community has been exploited by industries such as SASOL and now faces daily realities of chemical spills, air toxins, and infected farmland. Citizens who became employees of such industries have cited bloody noses while on site, and women frequently suffer from endometriosis and deliver babies with birth defects (Carey, 2019). The community also suffers from a high rate of cancer and “chemical diabetes” caused by ingesting the chemicals.
Manchester, Texas
A historically Latino community, Manchester, Texas, is exposed to air toxins as well as multiple high-risk facilities, while their neighboring white communities suffer no such health risk. Citizens of Manchester are mostly low-income and cannot afford to move away from the health hazards they are threatened with daily. The risks on their health are made worse by lack of access to public transportation, health care, and healthy foods (Parras, 2016).
Solutions
While there is no single simple solution that will solve environmental injustice, there are some improvements that can reasonably be made. First, laws need to be enforced equally and swiftly. Political officials in the south have been accused of being “lax” in their enforcement of environmental justice policies, partially because it is easy to take advantage of the largely low-income communities (Diaz, 2016). Another potential solution is to change policy. The policy of placing waste facilities in low-populated areas was put in place to have the least health consequences, but it disproportionately puts low-income individuals living in those rural areas at risk. This policy needs to be reevaluated and research should be done to find out the best ways to get rid of toxic waste and where to do it.