Happy Valentine's Day. All the love in the air reminded me of a well known case where our lack of love for the earth led to some pretty severe consequences.
At a meeting this past weekend, I found myself looking for short, simple definitions of environmental justice. After being questioned repeatedly by one person determined to get to the meat of my interest in the topic, I finally narrowed the inspiration for my work down to "people should not have to deal with toxic substances dumped in their neighborhoods or homes." That is, to me, much of what environmental justice is about. But I wanted to spend a little time talking about some of the classic examples of environmental injustices that have been inspiration for environmental justice activism in the past. Here's the first of those.
One of the first widely recognized cases now filed under the category of "environmental justice" was Love Canal, in upstate New York. The canal was originally built to connect 2 different parts of the Niagara River, above and below the famous falls. Only part of the trench for this canal was ever built back at the turn of the last century, and for several decades in the early 20th century, chemical waste was
disposed of in the canal. In the 1950's the waste was covered over with dirt and vegetation.
Decades later, a school board decided to build a school on a toxic waste dump (which was later declared a Superfund site). To be clear, the school board was warned that this was a toxic site, and even forced to sign a document acknowledging the fact. The city government also allowed the construction of homes there. By the late 70's, community members, led by Lois Gibbs, started speaking out about the higher than normal occurrence of illnesses in the area. The case is too long and complicated to summarize briefly; you can read Wikipedia's coverage here, or the EPA's summary here.
But this was one of the first cases where a community member and an alliance of concerned citizens fought for both their right to know what toxins were around them, and then their right to live in a community free of toxic pollutants. In this case, like many others, both humans and plant life were affected. Babies and adults showed a wide range of problems, and few plants would grow atop the waste. The company originally responsible for the pollution and the local government did not respond to the complaints of the community group. Finally, the EPA and the president (then Jimmy Carter) got involved and they, in concert with national media, recognized the severity of the situation.
This case was inspiration for the passing of federal legislation called CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which was the first major law that held polluters responsible for the consequences of their pollution. CERCLA is also called the Superfund Act.
You may have heard of Superfund, the designation given to the most toxic and dangerous sites of pollution and toxic spills around the country. Unfortunately, the money set aside for Superfund sites when the legislation was created has now run out.
Have we begun to address these issues one community at a time, and through education and information, in such a way as to reduce the chances of something like Love Canal happening again? Or has our interest run out, or been channeled to other problems (problems like the economic meltdown which could easily lead to further environmental waste problems as financial resources are directed elsewhere)?
Recent Comments