The Privilege of Environmental Justice

On an average day, someone will hear or see a topic on climate change and the environment,

whether it be “Save the turtles! Remove plastic from the ocean!” or “New wildfires spread across

Australia.”, there is a constant buzz and discussion. However, the world seems to be silent when

it comes to those who are directly manipulated by these corporations, who are the main

contributors to the environmental problem. The silence birthed the Environmental Justice

movement, whose goal is to showcase and defend those minorities and low-income people(s)

who are left behind to deal with the environmental fallout. This paper will be showcasing how

environmental justice is currently viewed as a privilege when it should be given as a right,

followed by solutions to help fix the problem. This thesis will be accomplished by dissecting the

morality of justice/environmental ethics as well as analyzing what it means to be a right versus a

privilege.

To begin, let us define environmental justice. According to the Environmental Protection

Agency, “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” While the

EPA’s definition sounds reasonable and achievable on paper; however, this is often never

brought up when companies and corporations are planning a new build or figuring out where to

dump their waste. There is an endless cycle of a rigid class structure that benefits the rich

and continuously hurts the poor and the minorities. Environmental justice hides behind the

rhetoric that environmental problems (such as climate change) threaten everyone. Nevertheless,

time-and-time again, research shows that predominantly low income and minority groups are
often disadvantaged, targeted, and affected the most. It is a privilege not to have your community

attacked; it is a privilege to have clean air and water. Privilege shows a clear distinction that

justice and morality are subjective. By definition, privilege is about entitlements that are only

granted to specific players either by birth or on some conditional basis. In simpler terms, they

only benefit some. This subjectivity is heavily influenced by the fact that everyone who comes

into this world has moral standing; however, not everyone has the same moral significance.

(Cochrane) The difference between the two represents how easily the morality of one group of

people can be thrown out the window to make room for others’ own benefit/profit. This

distinction of who is morally significant also relies on guilt. The definition of guilt is a feeling of

having done wrong or failed in an obligation. (Oxford Dictionary 780) William Neblett wrote a

journal article, The Ethics of Guilt,

This brings us to an allied point about the critical role that feelings of guilt play in

our moral self-estimation: Where, and to what degree, we feel guilt identifies for us,

is a signal to us, of what we really feel about various matters of morality.

(Neblett 654)

This idea of moral self-estimation is the point system that we use to deem someone(s) morally

significant or not. In terms of environmental justice, minorities and low-income peoples do not

meet the requirements of societies’ standards on who is significant. This lack of significance was

the breaking point for those affected and the kickstart of the environmental justice movement.

To start understanding the breakdown of environmental justice, one has to go back to its

origins: not just where it came from but also where it is rooted. Environmental ethics is a field of
philosophy whose primary concern is about the human relationship with Nature, heavily

focusing on actions that are better or worse for Nature and understanding the implications.

(Cochrane) Do not be confused: humans are not the center of the conversation, but rather an

action that affects the environment around us. When discussing morals surrounding this ethic, it

comes down to what obligations we have for the natural environment. However, these very

morals are often criticized by ethicists because there should they deem that moral standing also

belongs to the natural world (one not affected by humans). For that very reason, there is a lack of

moral obligations for the environmental justice movement because it was created out of the

necessity for the people, meaning that it is a purely anthropocentric ethic.

To further define, anthropocentrism is the concept of human centeredness; we are the

only ones to have a moral obligation to ourselves; everything else is just a means to our end.

(Cochrane) While I agree that we should have a moral obligation for the environment,

anthropocentrism is not the end of the natural world. It causes a disconnect between important

social, environmental issues. Ben Minteer agrees with this assessment in his book Refounding

Environmental Ethics, and he claims that when philosophers belittle anthropocentric views, they

create a tension that dismantles public support for environmental protection. (Minteer 17) Not

only that, but Minteer also says:

On normative ethical grounds, too, it seemed to me that the narrow nature-

centered orientation of such positions ran the risk of downplaying other pressing

ethical obligations and concerns, especially critical issues of human welfare and

social justice, thus inelegantly exposing environmental philosophers to damaging

charges of misanthropy and ‘green imperialism.’

 (Minteer 17)

Highlighting human welfare and social justice is key to establishing the importance of

environmental justice. Even though environmental justice is an anthropocentric ethic, it morally

cannot be grouped into the same category of seeing the environment as ‘a means to an end.’ In a

sense, the people affected by toxic waste/climate are the same as the environment. For example,

in any dilemma, there are two actors, [in this case] the corporation and the environment. When a

corporation wants to dump toxic waste underground, they find low-income areas with high

minority populations because they know these citizens would not know about what the

corporation was doing. Said corporation then dumps the waste underground without following

proper regulations. To the corporations, the environment was a means to an end; the environment

was morally obligated to help. The people living around this environment were roped in as a

means to an end; they are seen on the same level as the natural world around them. What

differentiates humankind to the point where certain people are seen as dirt? How can a set of

people have moral obligations to humans and yet are blind to see those they affect? Do these

communities have no value, no use? Where is the justice?

Now, let us dissect justice in terms of the environmental justice movement. Under the

rulings of philosophy, justice is often defined as one of the four cardinal virtues and was even

called “the first virtue of social institutions” by John Rawls. ((Rawls 1971, p.3; Rawls, 1999,

p.3)) On the broad scope, I prefer Aristotle’s definition of justice, where it has two meanings: 1)

conduct in agreement with the law where it is used as an authoritative instrument to help guide

social and moral control. [Men] should do just things and act morally just. 2) Being just also

signifies about equality or to be “fair.” (Chroust, David 129-130) Aristotle’s viewpoint also
encompasses the fact that justice revolves around how individuals (or groups of individuals) are

treated and what they are due. When something is unjust, it means that their claims, whatever

they may be, are being denied; their obligation is not being enforced. This definition is often

loopholed in politics and policymaking because it is ambiguous. Who can administer justice?

What exactly are people ‘due’? In the perfect world, one would argue that every man (man being

the word for the human species) has the ability to enforce getting the equality all man deserves.

However, in this current society, justice is deeply cemented in the system of laws (whether it be

written law or even understood social morals) in which these are continually changing. Our

society also does not view all men as equal, so how can we create a just system? If written law is

altered to make something/someone(s) more just, does justice only exist if equality is not

automatically given? The environmental justice movement was created out of a necessity for the

equality that was missing. The same type of scenario goes for women’s rights, African American

rights, and Native American rights. Justice is just another way to define the representation of

equality through rights.

Rights; a single word that dictates how modern society works. The distinguishing marker

between what actions are correct, who/what is to be just. Rights form the entire backbone and

foundation of our governments, how laws are determined, and what is morally right/wrong. More

often than not, when someone hears the word ‘rights,” they would associate it with freedom and

liberty. However, when asked the question, ‘what are rights,’ they come up empty-handed when

trying to develop a working definition. How can we (as a modern man) give out rights if they are

not a tangible thing; how can we enforce someone’s right? This paper’s purpose is to show how

environmental justice is a privilege when it should be a given right; however, to do that, one

must answer the question of what rights are. Rights are deeply rooted in the workings of our
society. There are controversies of its existence, purpose, and power. Nevertheless, even with all

the debates, I believe that it is a crucial component that protects our civil liberties and establishes

the commonality of all humankind. Rights represent an irrevocable entitlement that all

humankind should have a birth.

The main conversation of philosophers is: do rights exist? Like with all topics, there are

believers and skeptics, and their mission is to decide where rights land on the scale. By analyzing

a few philosophers and dissecting their theories, we will be able to establish that 1) rights do

exist, and 2) environmental justice should be a right. Many skeptics of rights-theory fall

somewhere in the middle of the scale- not fully believing in the overall concept of rights and not

thinking that it is on the same plane of existence as unicorns. They justify their “middle-of-the-

road” version of rights by claiming that this terminology is used only under legal context.

Legality is where I also draw the line at where rights stand. If we are to use rights to explain

moral relations, there has to be some way to make it tangible; otherwise, the ideology just turns

into a metaphor and becomes meaningless. (Tebbit 145) Legal rights also take away the power of

the moral force. Earlier in the paper, the distinction between moral standing and moral

significance made it clear that our society relies on giving out claims by moral significance.

However, if we remove moral force under legal rights, then rights can exist and be backed by the

law. If we take the definition of environmental crime:

‘an act committed with the intent to harm or with a potential to cause harm to

ecological and/or biological systems and for the purpose of securing business or

personal advantage.’

(Clifford and Edwards, 1998: 26)

Then parties have the power to claim their rights and can now put pressure on the actors who

owe them what they are due. An example of this happened in the case of Warren County. Warren

County, North Carolina, caused a national uprise when images of black protestors were lying on

the dirt as a dump truck filled with toxic PCB-laced soil came hurtling towards them. Even

though the protests gained national headlines, there was nothing that was stopping the Ward

Transformer Company from dumping their waste into the neighborhoods of black people.

However, people began suing the different parties (whose sole interest was a personal advantage)

under the context of environmental crime and equal rights under the 14th amendment; the court

system became legally obligated to pay retributions and cleanup costs to the residents of Warren

County. (Taylor 13-19) While it is significant that these people were able to get what they were

due, why did this happen in the first place? The Ward Transformer Company was not obligated

to consider the people because there was nothing specific in the context of legal rights that

forbade them from dumping the waste into a poor-black community. Moral rights, while good on

paper, do not protect anyone but instead are just a fleeting afterthought. Jeremy Bentham had this

same sentiment claiming that there can only be legal rights; moral rights create confusing and

dangerous rhetoric. (Tebbit 148) Therefore, for disenfranchised communities to get the

environmental justice they deserve, there needs to be legal rights pertaining only to

environmental crime and the equality of environmental justice.

This talk of moral rights versus legal rights is essential for the successful cases of

environmental justice. Morality, to differentiate good from bad, as mentioned previously, is

subjective. While the premise behind it is that humans are free and equal beings, throughout

history, that has not been the case. For instance, slave owners in the south had legal property
rights for their slaves, but morally the slave was not property but a free/equal being. (Southern

Methodist University) However, that ideology could never hold up in court. Now, you may ask,

what about civil rights? Would not environmental justice fall under that domain? To that

question, I would answer yes, because civil rights are moral rights of citizens that allow free and

equal citizenship in our democracy. (Southern Methodist University) Since we already

established that moral rights cannot be enforced, this is the very reason that civil rights were such

a long winding road of hardship before it was over. Nothing was solved until it was written in

law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; nothing will be solved until environmental justice is

written into law.

As mentioned above, I focused on the idea that legal rights and written law were the only

way to protect the freedom of the black/brown and low-income, but is this a credible solution?

Under the Civil Rights Act, it became clear that blatant discrimination would result in loss of

state funding. Yet, racist views and practice still exist in environmental policy development.

“Whites” ignore and discount the difference among people to color and view their environment

as less important than those of “whites.” (Collin 420) This racial tension is built up in

marginalized communities because they are forced to challenge their oppressors: wealthy, upper

class, white men who solely dominate the environmental industry. Most of these environmental

policies (that become hard laws) come from the federal government. There is constant opposition

from state governments that make enacting environmental protection difficult.

The states are significant players with intergovernmental relations; without them, public

policy enforcement comes to a slow halt. States know that they are a trial run before specific

laws are integrated on a federal level. Often they use this to their advantage. An example of this

is found in Oregon’s Environmental Justice Task Force. The task force involved a collection of
diverse people from all walks of life (color, class, job.). EJTF’s mission is: advise EJ issues to

the governor, define the EJ issues occurring in the state, identify communities that can be

targeted, meet with these communities and raise their concerns, and advise natural resource

agencies about EJ concerns. (Collin 450) A task force like this is a successful first step into

national law for the equality of environmental rights. Their successes rely on public engagement

in various communities to having a diverse cast of players to help mitigate racial tensions. If

environmental justice can be enforced on a small scale, such as utilizing a task force to direct the

governor’s policies, can this not be a viable solution on a nationwide scale. In this scenario, the

rights of environmental justice are being enforced through one small political change.

Finally, I end on the solution of permanence. As mentioned earlier, without putting EJ

under legal rights, the movement just becomes meaningless and unenforceable. There seems to

be a lack of motivation towards making environmental justice a real and permanent thing. Some

may argue that environmental justice is written into law, I would counter that by stating they are

only temporary actions. Items such as executive orders from the President of the United States

can easily be revoked or altered, establishing that one moment we care for those in danger, and

the next, we do not. The same ideology goes for political agencies started founded by

President’s, once the 4-8 years are up, there is no guarantee that an agency remains standing.

(Kaswan 150-153) Environmental Justice needs permanence; it needs to be regarded in the same

way as the first amendment. Whether it is possible to add to our constitution, I do not have the

answer, but I can say that it would further guarantee equal rights that so many have been fighting

for decades.

I want to end on this note: forty of forty-four states (90%) with hazardous waste facilities

have disproportionately high percentages of people of color in host neighborhoods - on average,

about two times greater than the percentages in non-host areas. (Collin 414) Do these people not

deserve to be seen as morally significant? The separation of humankind has caused the privileges

of one to overshadow the rights of all. Environmental justice is the first stepping-stone to gain

universal equality for those who are deemed as lesser. Having legal rights established with a

permanent connotation will undoubtedly cause a ripple effect to help those rising out of

oppression. The ability to enforce black and brown people(s) right to live safely furthers should

not be a question, but rather a mission to fulfill.

“To support whatever is right, and to bring injustice where we’ve had so much

injustice.”

(Fannie Lou Hamer)

 Bibliography

Chroust, Anton-Hermann, and David L Osborn. “Aristotle's Conception of Justice.” Notre Dame

Law Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 1 Jan. 1942, pp. 129–143.,

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3967&context=ndlr.

Cochrane, Alasdair. “Environmental Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London School

of Economics and Political Science, www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth/.

Collin, Robert W. “Environmental Justice in Oregon: It's the Law.” Environmental Law, vol. 38, no.

2, 2008, pp. 413–455., https://www.jstor.org/stable/43267205.

“Environmental Justice.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 8 May 2020,

www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.

Kaswan, Alice. “Environmental Justice and Environmental Law.” Fordham Environmental Law

Review, vol. 24, no. 2, 2013, pp. 149–179.,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26195842?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

Miller, David. “Justice.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 June 2017,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/.

Minteer, Ben A. Refounding Environmental Ethics: Pragmatism, Principle, and Practice. Temple

University Press, 2012.

Neblett, William. “The Ethics of Guilt.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 71, no. 18, 24 Oct. 1974,

pp. 652–663.,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2024803.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:6a3622ff1ede698dfe87ae42a31

23621.

“Privilege (Law).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2020,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law).
Stevenson, Angus. Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Taylor, Dorceta. Toxic Communities - Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residen.

New York University Press, 2014.

Tebbit, Mark. Philosophy of Law: an Introduction. 3rd ed., Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group,

2017.

“Understanding the Tools.” SMU, Southern Methodist University,

www.smu.edu/Provost/Ethics/Resources/EthicsToolBox/UnderstandingtheTools/MoralRightsTh

eoreticalBackground.

Wenar, Leif. “Rights.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 24 Feb. 2020,

plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/.

White, Rob D. Environmental Harm: an Eco-Justice Perspective. The Policy Press, 2014.