Why Are The Poor And Minorities Exposed To More Pollution In The U.S.?
Centuries of Bias and Racism Show Us Why
“Over the years, a mountain of evidence has brought to light a stark injustice: Compared with white Americans, people of color in the United States suffer disproportionately from exposure to pollution.”
Hiroko Tabuchi and Nadja Popovich, The New York Times
It turns out there is a “mountain of evidence” to support the claim that both the poor and minorities have much greater exposure to all types of pollution, and particularly the air pollution spewing from factory and chemical plants across the country. Even the American Lung Association weighs in on this disparity and concludes: “The burden of air pollution is not evenly shared. Poorer people and some racial and ethnic groups are among those who often face higher exposure to pollutants and who may experience greater responses to such pollution.”
But exactly why this longstanding disparity exists into the 21st century is more difficult to pinpoint with evidence. Perhaps because that data might involve people admitting to racist banking practices, like redlining, and companies admitting that they choose poorer areas to build their factories because they expect much less of a fight, thus subjecting the poor and people of color to more pollution simply because of their close proximity to its source.
It’s not that poor and minorities want to inhale noxious pollutants, but the draw of the possible jobs a factory will bring to a particular area is a matter of necessity, so for that reason they also are less likely to fight the siting of a new plant. But in many cases, these factories don’t bring the jobs they promise to local residents.
And the residents in these communities have less money to hire savvy legal help, which is as vital as angry community members banding together to successfully fight the siting of a new factory, or to rein in the pollution of an existing one.
One example of this continued racial disparity is the small town of Institute, West Virginia, which is also home to the historically Black, West Virginia State University, and located adjacent to a Union Carbide plant. According to this investigative piece by ProPublica, the citizens of Institute have been fighting the Union Carbide plant for decades, charging them with emitting air pollutants far exceeding EPA limits, and causing a spate of similar illnesses and an unusual number of cancer deaths in the town.
In the mid-1980’s there was a chemical leak at the plant, and nearly 150 residents went to the hospital with respiratory symptoms. The then Chairman of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, came to Institute for a public appearance, yet according to this ProPublica article “he remained defiant”:
“… warning that calls for chemical plants to take stronger safety measures would hurt the broader economy and society. “Somebody has sold a bill of goods that this is a zero-risk world,” Anderson said at the time.'‘
These comments are critical to understanding the arrogance of companies, then and now, and why so many polluters get away with violating environmental laws. This type of pushback after a major disruption and leak at a chemical plant is the rule, not a shocking exception. What they are saying is that “you need us more than we need you, so get used to the pollution, leaks, illness and other disruptions” And do you think Mr. Anderson was suffering the risks he insisted were part of our world, tucked safely away in a leafy suburb of McMansions?
What is both interesting and confounding is that the idea of environmental justice, of righting the wrongs of the poor and minorities bearing the largest brunt of pollution has been discussed for decades. In fact, it’s been a part of several of the last administrations’ priorities, including President Biden’s vow “to make racial and environmental equity a centerpiece of his administration.” What has stalled our progress toward this goal when human health and safety, particularly in certain communities are recklessly endangered?
Let me know what you think in the comment section below!
As always, if you like what you just read, then please share this post.
If you haven’t yet become a free or paid subscriber to Crime and Punishment, don’t waste another second. Sign up right here.
warning that calls for chemical plants to take stronger safety measures would hurt the broader economy and society. “Somebody has sold a bill of goods that this is a zero-risk world,” Anderson said at the time.'‘ The time honored tradition corporations use warning that any safety measures taken would hurt their bottom line and hence they would have to pass the costs onto consumers was and is their classic threat....
It's an endlessly disturbing truth that disadvantaged groups are more exposed to these hazardous/ brownfields/ superfund sites. Particularly with the lack of adequate access to healthcare in these communities, it only reinforces the cycle that is already difficult enough to break from.