Investigating Environmental Injustice in Minnesota

With the acceleration of climate change globally, marginalized communities are more at risk of suffering from environmental hardships and negative health effects. Minnesota is not exempt from these circumstances. 

Environmental injustice is when climate change disproportionately affects a community or individual based on one or more aspects of their identity. This can include race, socioeconomic status, or other aspects that would lead to marginalization in American society. 

Generally, those belonging to unmarginalized communities benefit from our human-created systems and suffer less when posed with environmental hardships; in turn, those belonging to marginalized communities with a history of being discriminated against, such as communities of color and lower-income communities, are more vulnerable to environmental harm, cannot protect themselves in the ways that higher-income and white communities can, and therefore are likely suffer more when posed with it.

This concept, environmental injustice, is one of the most critical issues associated with climate change and systemic income & racial inequalities (Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, 2024).

One may think that in Minnesota, a U.S. state generally viewed as more progressive and liberal in comparison to other states, environmental injustice would not be a persistent problem. This is not true. While not as pressing as in other locations across the world, environmental injustice is still a persistent issue in Minnesota (Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, 2024).

Several Minnesota non-profit organizations and campaigns are at work to fight for environmental justice (EJ) within the state for communities of color and low-income communities. They hope to catch the attention of Minnesota’s policymakers who have previously ignored the fight for EJ.

To investigate environmental injustice in Minnesota, I examined three variables:

1. the percentage of non-white individuals in a given area,
2. the median household income in a given area, and
3. the locations of hazardous facilities as outlined by the EPA Toxic Release Inventory Toxics Tracker

This allows me to analyze two different at-risk communities in Minnesota spatially. Overtop this, I plotted each location of hazardous facilities as outlined by the EPA TRI Toxics Tracker.

The Toxics Release Inventor (TRI) Toxics Tracker is a database created by the EPA showcasing all toxic chemical releases reported by various industrial facilities across the United States. 

The TRI Toxics Tracker reports 556 facilities in Minnesota, varying in risk factors and the amount of waste released and managed. I will assess and sort these facilities based on their location and their Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Hazard. An RSEI Hazard is a unitless measurement that compiles the chemical release, environmental fate, calculated chemical concentration, exposure assumptions, estimated dose, toxicity data, population data, and potentially exposed populations of a given facility to assess the relative potential harm (EPA TRI Toxics Tracker, 2022). 

An RSEI Hazard does not provide a detailed risk assessment of a given facility, rather takes in the previously listed factors to provide a simplified, relative, and unitless number that can be analyzed in comparison to other facilities. A higher RSEI Hazard can suggest a greater potential risk in the given area. Still, if concern about a certain facility is great enough, further research is suggested by the EPA (EPA, 2022). 

It is important to note that I am primarily assessing the location/proximity of any potentially harmful facility to vulnerable communities that suffer from environmental injustice, in addition to the RSEI Hazard.

The slider below illustrates two maps (the non-white population percentage and the median household income) with overlays of the TRI-identified toxic facilities; this slide covers all Minnesota counties. Review the legends on the left side of the slider for clarity.

Assessing environmental injustice by viewing racial diversity and median household income at the large scale of counties can confuse viewers. There is not enough information to support the correlation between racial diversity or median household income and the concentration/RSEI hazard of these toxic facilities. For example, the most densely populated Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) metropolitan area population averages between 30-40% non-white individuals (where 222/556, or nearly 40% of Minnesota's toxic facilities are located), but two of the most racially diverse counties (Mahnomen and Nobles) only have three toxic facilities between them; this can propose confusion for both reader and researcher and make it virtually impossible to conclude environmental injustice across the entire state of Minnesota at the county level.

Additionally, in the rural areas of Minnesota, the median household income sits between $60,000 to $75,000 per year, which is on the lower side of the income range for Minnesota, but the concentration of toxic facilities is much lower in those rural areas. The majority of Minnesota's wealth is held in the suburbs around MSP, but still within most of the greater metropolitan counties where many of the toxic facilities are located.

This results in many questions and inconsistencies largely due to the size of the counties.  Searching for a deeper analysis, I then evaluated the seven counties of the greater MSP metropolitan area (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington) at the smaller census tract level. We may be able to reach a concrete conclusion about environmental injustice in the greater MSP metropolitan area in this way.

The slider below illustrates two maps (the non-white population percentage and the median household income) with overlays of the TRI-identified toxic facilities; this slide covers all census tracts in the greater MSP metropolitan area.

Review the legends on the right side of the slider for clarity.

Assessing racial diversity and median household income at the census tract level as opposed to the county level provides a new level of clarity that is otherwise lost in the large size of the counties. At this level, we can see a greater correlation between the locations of the TRI-identified toxic facilities and communities of color & lower-income communities.

First, I have identified five example communities within the greater MSP metropolitan area to demonstrate the correlation between non-white population percentage and toxic facility location. The data is presented in the sidecar below.

Each of the five example communities presented above illustrates how communities of color suffer from environmental injustice by being closer to toxic facilities than others.

Next, I have identified four example communities within the greater MSP metropolitan area to demonstrate the correlation between median household income and toxic facility location. The data is presented in the sidecar below.

Each of the four example communities presented above illustrates how lower-income communities suffer from environmental injustice by being closer to toxic facilities than others.

Finally, the following slide illustrates the 10 facilities in Minnesota with the highest RSEI hazards. 7/10 of these facilities are located in the greater MSP metropolitan area and many are situated in lower-income communities and communities of color. Each facility is labeled with its name and ranking in Minnesota. Explore the slider below for more information.

When viewing this data at the census tract level, we can see the presence of environmental injustice in Minnesota, specifically impacting communities of color and lower-income communities.

These marginalized groups are more at risk of suffering health effects from being closer and more exposed to toxic facilities, especially ones that can cause more potential harm; unmarginalized groups are often excluded from this level of proximity to toxic facilities due to racial and socioeconomic status. They can protect themselves in a way that is not accessible to marginalized communities.

While identifying the issue of environmental injustice is the first step toward solving it, I believe it is just as important to highlight potential solutions and organizations that are fighting for EJ. Explore the organizations below for more information on EJ campaigns in Minnesota.

Project Sweetie Pie is a non-profit organization that advocates for environmental justice and food security in North Minneapolis, an area that has suffered from excessive pollution and is considered a food desert. They have helped to fund the development of several urban gardens in North Minneapolis and use their platform to speak on the importance and interconnectedness of environmental justice and food security (Project Sweetie Pie, 2024).

Community Members for Environmental Justice (CMEJ) is a collection of community members who work to combat environmental injustice in Minneapolis. They specifically work towards helping racially diverse and low-income communities that have suffered extensive exposure to pollution in North Minneapolis (CMEJ, 2024). 

Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi is an indigenous-led ecological restoration program that promotes the custodial relationship that indigenous communities have with nature. They focus specifically on restoring the wetlands of Lake Phalen to the Mississippi River (Wakan Tipi Awanyankapi, 2024). 

Fresh Energy is an organization that fights for accessible and equitable clean energy across Minnesota and advocates for a carbon-neutral future. A large part of their campaign includes appealing to policymakers to create solutions to make clean energy accessible for people of all backgrounds (Fresh Energy, 2024).

Center for Energy, Earth, and Democracy (CEED) works with grassroots organizations, policymakers, and researchers to provide accessible educational materials about climate change and environmental justice, especially to under-educated communities (CEED, 2024). 

While environmental injustice currently persists in Minnesota, these organizations are perfect examples of community engagement in fighting for environmental justice.