The article dated on February 20, 2008 outlines a current issue faced by the state of California. Low income community groups from five of California’s cities are joining forces to combat “any global warming regulation that allows industries to trade carbon emissions.” Basically, much of the state’s industries, the heavy polluters, are located within the poor California neighborhoods. Governor Schwarzenegger has taken the stance to allow industry to avoid lowering emissions by buying their way out.
This has come to fruition as the state’s Air Resources Committee is struggling to meet the 2006 law criteria for greenhouse gases. According to the article, “under a trading scheme, 11 power plants to be built around Los Angeles could offset emissions by extracting methane from coal seams in Utah or planting trees in Manitoba,” thus leaving the local communities to absorb the brunt of the increased pollution.
This is a typical situation as described in the Konisky article. Konisky claims that, “…areas with large numbers of minority and lower-income populations are disproportionately subjected to environmental burdens.” Unfortunately, the local California communities that accommodate the industries are left to deal with the entire negative by products of increase pollution, while the fringe benefits are enjoyed by other more affluent locations, such as Utah and Manitoba. This is a classic example that drives the environmental justice program. These communities have representation and a voice, environmental justice is their microphone.
As put by Rast, “a potential vehicle for engaging inner-city minorities in the new regionalist dialogue is environmental justice.” Up until our late history were issues such as this made public. Minority groups did not have a voice, rather they imposed grave injustices. Some of which have broken once prominent minority communities into nothing.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/20/local/me-envirojust20
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also agree with the Konisky article in his description that minorities are often subject to environmental hazard, or public health risks due to their lack of political mobilization. This may be true for the majority of minority or low-income groups subject to environmental justice issues, but I think that more frequently now, communities are more aware of what is around them, or what was produced or stored prior to living there. Many families move to these areas due to low and affordable housing not realizing the real reasons for the home’s value. Close knit communities are not as common as in previous decades, and maybe social cohesion between neighbors and communities will help develop the political mobilization that is needed to stand up for themselves.
ReplyDelete