Environmental Justice and Harm To Humans

Two
Environmental justice and

harm to humans
Introduction
Analysis of environmental harm is premised on the idea that someone

or something is indeed being harmed. Environmental justice refers to
the distribution of environments among peoples in terms of access to
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
and use of specific natural resources in defined geographical areas, and

the impacts of particular social practices and environmental hazards
on specific human populations (for example, as defined on the basis of
class, occupation, gender, age, ethnicity). In other words, humans are
at the centre of analysis. The focus of analysis is on human health and
well-being and how these are affected by particular types of production
and consumption.
Within these broad parameters a series of important questions can
be asked. For example, who, precisely, is victimised and why? Are there
specific patterns to environmental victimisation affecting individuals,
groups and communities? Is everyone affected by environmental harm?
Is everyone equally exposed to risk of harm, or is victimisation solely
related to social divisions such as class, gender and race?
Part of the answer to these questions lies in how the particular
questions are framed and in how particular events shape public
perceptions and actual experiences. Global warming and climate
change, for example, have implications for everyone on the planet
even if those first and most profoundly affected are the poor and
marginalised. Incidents such as the emission explosions at the Union
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, and at the BP oil rig off the coast of
the USA in the Gulf of Mexico, are non-discriminatory at one level.
These events had an impact in some way on every person within range
of them, even though company directors and people living outside of
such ‘production’ zones were not directly affected. In many cases it
is the actions of activist groups and environmental social movements
that bring to public attention specific types of environmental harm,
including knowledge about which individuals and groups suffer the
Copyright 2013. Policy Press.
most in particular places around the world.
43
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/1/2022 2:36 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN
AN: 643520 ; White, Rob.; Environmental Harm : An Eco-Justice Perspective
Account: s2953473.main.ehost
Environmental harm
The main focus of this chapter is to explore how environmental

harm is constructed in relation to specific groups of people. In other
words, the concern is with matters of social justice in relation to
environmental harm. This is a motivating factor for activists to take
action. The overarching political and theoretical framework can
usefully be described therefore as environmental justice, an approach to
environmental harm that has a specific interest in harm to humans.
This is different from a broader concept of the environment and justice
that incorporates harm to specific eco-systems and plant and animal
species. The activist defense of environmental justice takes the form
of the environmental justice (EJ) movement.
Since human health and wellbeing are at the centre of EJ movement
activism, as informed by social justice principles, the concept of rights
is central to the development of the overall environmental social justice
perspective or approach.
Contentious concepts: environmental justice

This section presents the concepts which underpin analysis and action
in regards to the pursuit of environmental justice. These include the
idea of social justice, and the notions of environmental rights, justice,
equity, discrimination and racism.The precautionary principle is then
discussed, as is environmental victimisation.
Key elements of social justice generally include dignity and respect for
the person, and protection of human rights; economic egalitarianism
and social equality, such that each person enjoys the same rights,
opportunities and services as all other citizens; and active engagement
in social institutions, and in decision-making that affects individuals
and the groups or collectivities of which they are a part (White, 2008c:
50). Environmental justice applies these general propositions to the
relationship between specific groups and the environment, including
issues pertaining to the quality of environmental amenities and access
to healthy environments.
Environmental rights are seen as an extension of human or social rights,
because they see the goal as one of enhancing the quality of human life
(for example, access to clean air, water, space and a sustainable supply
of natural resources valued in relation to human health and amenity).
This is reflected, for example, in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on
the Human Environment (see Thornton and Tromans, 1999).
44
EBSCOhost - printed on 5/1/2022 2:36 PM via COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - MAIN. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Environmental justice and harm to humans
Principle 1:
Man (sic) has a fundamental right to freedom, equality and

adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality
that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he (sic)
bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the
environment for present and future generations.
This principle encapsulates two key obligations: first, intergenerational

responsibility such that present generations do not act in ways which
jeopardise the existence of future generations (intergenerational equity);
and second, environmental justice in the here and now such that
access to and use of specific natural resources in defined geographical
areas, and the impacts of particular social practices and environmental
hazards are ‘shared out’ on an equal rather than discriminatory basis
(social equity). Environmental harm is thereby constructed in relation
to perceptions of ‘value’ that place humans at the core.
As such, the point is to protect and preserve particular environments
and/or species for the ‘greater good’ of humans. Should, however,
environmental rights be seen as an extension of human or social rights
(for example, related to the quality of human life, such as provision of
clean water), or should human rights be seen as merely one component
of complex eco-systems that should be preserved for their own
sake (that is, as in the notion of the rights of the environment) (see
Thornton and Tromans, 1999; Christoff, 2000)? For present purposes
we need simply to acknowledge that a narrow conceptualisation of
environmental justice focuses predominantly on human welfare and
interests. This translates into propositions such as, for instance, that
present generations ought to act in ways that do not jeopardise the
existence and quality of life of future generations. As discussed in the
next chapter, other conceptions of environmental rights are broader
than this, being premised on the idea that we ought to extend the
moral community to include nonhuman nature.
Within an EJ framework, environmental issues are thus examined
in terms of effects on human populations, including the ramifications
of certain practices on competing industries (for example, negative
impact of clearfell logging on tourism). The use of pesticides, to take
another example, may have dramatic impacts on animal species (in
that they seem to have coincided with the spread of a fatal tumour
disease among the Tasmanian devil population in recent years) and on
specific environments (the pollution of coastal waters in north eastern
Tasmania).The damage, however, is often framed in terms of human loss
45
Environmental harm
(of a Tasmanian tourism icon; of the destruction of oyster farms), rather

than biosphere or nonhuman animal per se. Not surprisingly, then,
environmental justice movements are largely focused on redressing the
unequal distribution of environmental disadvantage, and in particular
with preventing environmental hazards being located in their local
area. If the notion of environmental justice is simply confined to this
‘not in my back yard’ (NIMBY) approach, then issues of justice to the
wider, nonhuman environment will be largely ignored.
The term environmental justice originated in the United States in the
late 1970s and early 1980s and it is from the US that social movements
worldwide have taken their inspiration and, to some extent, their
direction.The social movements associated with the environment can
trace their lineage back to at least the early 1830s when already there
were calls to preserve wilderness for future generations and for its own
sake. From this time onwards, efforts toward the conservation of natural
resources (for the economic and social benefit of later generations) were
also matched by movements which argued the protection of the natural
world (and not its exploitation, however well managed) (Edwards, 1998).
It was within the context of the growth of the wider environmental
movements from the 1960s onwards that the EJ movement, as a specific
movement, emerged.
The so-called ‘age of ecology’ during this period was also an age of
‘environmental inequality’ (Hurley, 1995) in that the rise and influence
of the environmental movements during the post-war period up to the
1980s saw the public interest in environmental reform mainly driven
by the white middle class – not African Americans and the poor. This
led to reforms, such as the federal Clean Water Act (1972) and the
creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (in 1970) that
ostensibly was of benefit to everyone regardless of social background.
Nonetheless, specific government efforts to curb pollution and preserve
endangered landscapes reflected deep race and class divides, and the
differential capacity of specific population groups to win space for
certain reforms and to protect their immediate amenities and interests.
This was to change as minority communities began to mobilise around
their particular interests in places such as Warren County, North
Carolina and Gary, Indiana (Brisman, 2007; Hurley, 1995).
Concern about these issues was also sparked by the release of a 1984
study commissioned by the California Waste Management Board that
identified the demographic characteristics of neighbourhoods most
likely and least likely to oppose the local placement of a hazardous waste
facility (Edwards, 1998: 47).This general finding is borne out in a case
study of pollution practices and environmental movements in Gary,
46
Indiana which found that ‘Because politics reflected the relative power
and divergent concerns of various groups within Gary, the cumulative
effect of environmental regulation was the movement of industrial
pollution towards neighbourhoods inhabited by minorities and the
poor, where resistance was weakest’ (Hurley, 1995: 174). Thus, in the
moment that a ‘universal’ problem (that is, pollution) became contested
as a significant social issue, the solution was to make it into a ‘particular’
problem for specific groups, communities and neighbourhoods. The
politics of place is intertwined with the politics of race, and class. One
outcome of this legacy of discriminatory waste disposal practices was
the environmental justice movement itself (see also Pellow, 2007).
The focus of the environmental justice movement is environmental
injustice.This is basically defined in terms of human health within the
context of specific environments.
Health is the main focus of the environmental justice

movement in the United States. Here, ‘environment’ is
generally defined as being where we live, work, play, worship,
and go to school, as well as the physical and natural world.
The World Health Organization defines health as ‘a state of
complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not just
the absence of disease or infirmity‘. These definitions of
environment and health capture the essence of the struggles
for environmental justice being fought by communities
made up of people of color and low-income groups.
(Bullard, 2005a: 2)
The concept of environmental equity refers to attempts to reduce

environmental hazards, risks and harms for all sections of the human
population and all types of communities. It basically encapsulates a
concern with discrimination and efforts to ensure that no particular
community (especially those featuring people of colour and from low
incomes) is subject to disproportionate environmental disadvantage.
Research in this area has demonstrated not only inequalities related to
race and class, but also factors such as gender, disability and immigration
status (Agyeman and Carmin, 2011).There are many different categories
of vulnerable groups throughout the world, and notably indigenous
peoples and traditional cultures have been especially prone to bearing
the brunt of environmental burdens. Matters of social power and social
interests are intrinsic to consideration of justice and equity in relation
to the environment.
47
Environmental harm
Environmental discrimination is at the heart of the EJ project.According

to Stretesky and Hogan (1998) environmental justice researchers
try to do at least two things: first, analysis of the placement of active
waste facilities in minority and poor areas; and second, analysis of the
social and political processes that shape racial, ethnic and economic
demographic patterns around existing hazardous waste sites. Direct
discrimination relates to the ‘prejudice leads to discrimination’ model,
in which there is express intent to deny or harm another individual
or group based on some characteristics that the targeted individual or
group possesses (for example, put the hazard where ‘certain’ people do
not find it so offensive).
Indirect discrimination relates to practices that result in negative
and differential impacts on minorities even though the policies or
regulations guiding those actions were established and carried out with
no intent to harm (for example, economic and social forces may serve
to constrain the choices of minorities and the poor when compared to
the choices available to whites and the affluent – that is, what school
to attend, where to live, what kind of work is available, and so on).
Researchers assess broad patterns of urban settlement in order to
establish whether or not there are social inequalities related to the siting
of waste facilities.They also evaluate the social reasons why this may be
the case, incorporating into the analysis consideration of both direct and
indirect discrimination. Risk is never socially neutral. Environmental
justice explores why and how this is the case.
Environmental racism has been used to describe the ways in which,
within the United States context in particular, minority communities
comprised of people of colour (for example, African Americans) have
suffered denial of basic human rights and environmental protection,
and have generally and disproportionately had to live and work close
to polluting industries and toxic dumping grounds. As a concept,
environmental racism refers to ‘any policy, practice, or directive that
differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended)
individuals, groups, or communities because of their race or color’
(Bullard, 2005b: 32).Those who live in proximity to contaminated land,
air and water tend to be those with less overall social and economic
power, and this, in turn is associated with ‘race’ and ethnicity (Hurley,
1995; Bullard, 2005a). It may well be that the rich get richer, and the
poor get prison (Reiman, 2000), but people of colour get poison.
The environmental social justice framework seeks to prevent
environmental threats and is premised upon a series of interlinked
propositions and principles (see Bullard, 2005b). These principles
emphasise values such as social equity (in which all individuals should
48
have a right to be protected from environmental degradation) and harm

prevention (the focuses on eliminating a threat before harm occurs).
Each of these areas requires considerable resources be devoted to
measuring things such as human exposure to environmental chemicals,
and sociological analysis of harm and risk distributions among diverse
population groups.
An important part of the environmental social justice framework is
ideological and practical support for the adoption of the precautionary
principle. The precautionary principle refers to the idea that official
action be taken to protect people and environments in cases where
there is scientific uncertainty as to the nature of the potential damage
or the likelihood of risk.Two definitions of the precautionary principle
are frequently mentioned in the literature. The first is from a United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in 1992
in Brazil. The second is from the Wingspread conference dealing
specifically with the precautionary principle held in 1998 (National
Toxics Network Inc., no date).
1992 Rio Declaration
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary

approach shall be widely applied by states according to their
capabilities.Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as
a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
environmental degradation.
1998 Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or

the environment, precautionary measures should be taken
even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically. In this context the proponent of
an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden
of proof. The process of applying the precautionary
principle must be open, informed and democratic and must
include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an
examination of the full range of alternatives, including no
action.
49
Environmental harm
The precautionary principle has been integrated into the regulatory

and legal frameworks of the European Union, but has been less popular
in the US.
From a social movement perspective the preferred emphasis when it
comes to precaution is to err on the side of human safety and wellbeing
rather than industrial development. As Bullard (2005b: 28) observes:
It asks ‘How little harm is possible?’ rather than ‘How much

harm is allowable?’ This principle demands that decision
makers set goals for safe environments and examine all
available alternatives for achieving the goals, and it places
the burden of proof of safety on those who propose to use
inherently dangerous and risky technologies.
Moreover, the environmental social justice framework requires that

those ‘parties applying for operating permits for landfills, incinerators,
smelters, refineries, chemical plants, and similar operations must
prove that their operations are not harmful to human health, will
not disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities and other
protected groups, and are nondiscriminatory’ (Bullard, 2005b: 28–9).
Environmental victimisation can be defined as specific forms of harm
that are caused by acts or omissions leading to the presence or absence
of environmental agents which are associated with human injury
(Williams, 1996). It is important to distinguish between environmental
issues that affect everyone, and those that disproportionately affect
specific individuals and groups (see Williams, 1996; Low and Gleeson,
1998). As mentioned above, in some instances, there may be a basic
equality of victims, in that some environmental problems threaten
everyone, as in the case, for example, of ozone depletion, global
warming, air pollution and acid rain (Beck, 1996). Even here, though,
research has shown disproportionate negative effects according to
factors such as class, caste, race and gender (Shiva, 2008).
Patterns of differential victimisation are also evident with respect
to the siting of toxic waste dumps, extreme air pollution, chemical
accidents, access to safe clean drinking water and so on (see Chunn
et al, 2002; Saha and Mohai, 2005; Williams, 1996). Basically it is the
poor and disadvantaged who suffer disproportionately from such
environmental inequalities.
Another dimension of victimisation relates to the subjective
disposition and consciousness of the people involved. The specific
groups who experience environmental problems may not always
describe or see the issues in strictly environmental terms.This may be
50
related to lack of knowledge of the environmental harm, alternative

explanations for the calamity (for example, an act of God) and socio-
economic pressures to ‘accept’ environmental risk (see Harvey, 1996;
Julian, 2004;Waldman, 2007). Alternatively, certain types of events may
be perceived as disasters that are ‘natural’ rather than ‘human-induced’
(unusual weather events, for example), and this likewise influences
how people respond emotionally and strategically, including how they
interpret victimhood itself.
Social patterns of harm and risk

It is corporations and nation-states that define environmental risk and
harm in ways that prop up existing profit-based modes of production
and consumption (see Chapter Five). In so doing, transgressions against
particular groups of people, specific environments and other species
occur as a ‘natural’ consequence of systemic pressures and elite choices.
Exploitation of both the human and the nonhuman is built into the
very fabric of dominant constructions of natural resource management
and the national interest.
Sectional class interests and the interests of state elites are privileged
over and above both universal human interests (such as for an
ecologically sustainable environment) and the particular needs and
rights of specific population groups, nonhuman species and biospheres.
Wealth, power and influence are not pluralised, but are increasingly
concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, typically in the form of the
transnational corporation. The state is not independent of the general
power relations of a society, and therefore the exercise of state power
generally reflects the interests of those who have the capacity to marshal
significant economic and legal resources (for example, large mining
companies, agricultural corporate giants). Nonetheless, there is a relative
autonomy to state power insofar as the nation-state must rule in favour
of the system-as-a-whole (which periodically means intervention in the
affairs of specific companies). Likewise, for the sake of the wider political
economy the nation-state has an interest in maintaining a modicum of
public order (which may require addressing the most obviously harmful
social and environmental practices of private business).
The capitalist state is located squarely at the structural nexus of class
antagonism and reproduction. Insofar as this is the case, the expanding
role of the state in social control becomes central, as does its role in
legitimating the status quo. Concretely, then, the nation-state must
operate and be seen to protect the interests of capital-in-general (which
includes reining in those environmental activists who impinge upon
51
Environmental harm
production processes in industries such as forestry, coal and uranium

production). Simultaneously, the state must respond to the most extreme,
overt and undeniable changes in social and environmental conditions,
and to specific incidents (which may mean dealing negatively and
coercively with specific capitalists, specific organisations and specific
breaches of law).
What gets socially defined as environmental ‘harm’ or as a ‘risk’
is contingent upon the capacity of sectional interests to first garner
consensus about how to interpret what is happening, and second to
secure measures for generalising and implementing action against what
is deemed to be ‘harmful’ behaviour, primarily via the state. Material
differences in social power, and in social and ecological interests,
mean that state action is skewed in favour of powerful individuals
and companies. Most of the harm they do, therefore, is not defined as
such, or is redefined as ‘accidental’ or ‘unintentional’. Moreover, harm
can be rendered invisible to the extent that it is externalised to more
vulnerable population groups that do not have the social and political
power to match that of the powerful.
The net result of corporate action, which is facilitated and defended
by particular nation-states, is global environmental destruction and
degradation.This is happening across a broad range of areas, from global
warming through to diminishment of biodiversity.Waste and pollution
(of air, water and land) continue to be a major problem. Simultaneously,
‘natural resources’ are being used up at alarming rates with significant
implications for both biotic (for example, plants, animals) and abiotic
(for example, soils, water) constituents of the planet.
As extensive work on specific incidents and patterns of victimisation
demonstrate, some people are more likely to be disadvantaged by
environmental problems than others. For instance, studies have
identified disparities involving many different types of environmental
hazards that especially adversely affect people of colour, ethnic minority
groups and indigenous people in places such as Canada, Australia and
the US (Bullard, 1994; Pinderhughes, 1996; Langton, 1998; Stretesky
and Lynch, 1999; Brook, 2000; Rush, 2002).
People from poor and non-English speaking backgrounds may also
suffer disadvantages through their lack of participation in decision-
making forums, as well as lack of information about potential hazards
and risks. For example, methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin that can
have serious health impacts, particularly for fetal growth. Apparently
a large proportion of canned tuna fish sold in the United States
contains unsafe levels of methylmercury.Yet, the populations at risk of
overconsumption – namely minorities and low-income groups – are
52
most likely to be uninformed of the risks, and less likely to be aware

of fish advisories and to change consumption habits (Pallo and Barken,
2010).
The subjective disposition and consciousness of people is crucial to
perceptions of threat, risk and imminent danger. The specific groups
who experience environmental problems may not always describe or
see the issues in strictly environmental terms.
In our communities, the smell coming from sewage plants

was never perceived as an environmental issue but as a
survival issue…In workplaces, when workers are being
poisoned or contaminated…we do not refer to them as
environmental issues but as labour issues. Again, the same
thing for farmworkers and the issue of pesticides. In the
60s and 70s, there was organizing around the lead-based
paints used in housing projects. When the paint curled up
and chipped off, children in the projects were eating it and
getting sick.When we dealt with this issue, we perceived it
as an issue of tenant’s rights. (Moore, 1990: 16)
The unequal distribution of exposure to environmental risks, whether

it is in relation to the location of toxic waste sites or proximity to clean
drinking water, may not always be conceived as an ‘environmental’ issue,
nor indeed as an environmental ‘problem’. For instance, Harvey (1996)
points out that the intersection of poverty, racism and desperation may
occasionally lead to situations where, for the sake of jobs and economic
development, community leaders actively solicit the relocation of
hazardous industries or waste sites to their neighbourhoods.Waldman
(2007), on the other hand, describes a local community in South Africa
that saw the contamination effects of asbestos as ‘natural’.This was due
to a combination of religious beliefs (that stressed a passive stance to
the world around them) and the fact that harms that are imperceptible
to the senses often only exist as a problem if they are constituted as
such in public discourse (and in particular, the public discourse of the
village community). Otherwise, what is, simply is.
Consciousness of risk can also be studied from the point of view of
differential risk within at-risk populations. In others words, a particular
suburb or city may be placed in circumstances that heighten risks to
wellbeing and health for everyone (for example, dumping of toxic waste
in Abidjan, Ivory Coast; the spraying of chemical pesticides in New
York City). Particularly, however, where heightened risk is deemed
to be ‘acceptable’ in terms of cost-benefit analysis, as in the use of
53
Environmental harm
pesticides to prevent the spread of disease borne by mosquitoes, there

are ‘hidden’ costs that may not be factored in. For instance, children
and those with chemical sensitivities will suffer disproportionately if
chemicals are sprayed, since they are more vulnerable than others to
ill effects arising from the treatment. In such circumstances, the crucial
questions are not only, ‘how many will be harmed?’ but also, ‘who
will be harmed?’ (Scott 2005a: 56). To appreciate this, we need to be
conscious of differences within affected populations.
To take another example of how distribution of risk has an impact
upon different groups within at-risk populations, consider the case
of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards in the United
States that limit the level of dioxin releases from paper mills into rivers
and streams.
These releases are known to contaminate fish, and so the

EPA based its release levels on the average consumption of
such fish.Yet Native American consumption is well known
to be higher than the average American, making the dioxin
release a much greater health risk to Native Americans.
(Schlosberg, 2007: 60)
Vulnerability to environmental harm, therefore, is also due to social

differences in how people utilise or interact with nature.All those who
consume fish under the above circumstances may be at risk of dioxin
poisoning, but certain groups are more so because of their particular
cultural prescriptions and traditions.
On the other hand, it may well be that it is local residents, local workers
and laypeople generally who are more conscious of environmental risk
than the scientist or the politician. Some indication of this is provided
in a study of interaction between scientists and English sheep farmers
in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine
(Wynne, 1996). The study highlighted the accurate, detailed and
contextual knowledge of the local farmers, even though the scientists
considered this layperson knowledge to be lacking in precision.Those
who are closer to the ‘coal face’ and who have lived and worked in the
same area for years, are frequently those who notice the small changes
that are the harbingers of things to come.
Consciousness of risk is also influenced by the visibility of the
potential harm. For example, Beck (1996) observes that many risks
in contemporary society are largely invisible to human senses.
Radioactivity, for example, cannot be smelt, heard, seen, touched or
tasted. Often we do not really know what is in our drinking water.
54
Nevertheless, over time many people have come to appreciate the risks
associated with radioactivity, and indeed nuclear energy generally, as well
as to be suspicious about everyday consumables such as water (hence,
the huge and growing market in bottled water).This reflexivity about
risk has been made possible by mediated sources of knowledge, whereby
people draw upon multiple sources in order to assess potential threats
(for example, TV programmes, government statements, campaigns by
environmental groups).They also draw upon their own experiences, as
indicated above (see also Macnaghten and Urry, 1998).There are more
ways in which to ‘know’ than simply through the direct senses per se.
Exposure to risk scenarios is an integral part of raising consciousness
about risk. In recent years this has occurred in ways that have seen the
globalisation of risk (Macnaghten and Urry, 1998) through the actions
of EJ organisations in many different cities and countries around the
world.
Who is a victim is also reflective of differing degrees of harm,
injury and suffering. Death from environmental catastrophe is only
one example of how victimisation is made manifest. Whether the
affliction is or incorporates a disease or permanent injury or prolonged
mental illness and psychological distress, a large proportion of ‘victims’
are simultaneously ‘survivors’. They sometimes sustain injuries that
significantly alter the course and quality of their lives and that are
economically onerous in terms of healthcare. So too, the breaking up
of communities, the displacement of individuals, the loss of economic
livelihood and dispossession of land all constitute varying forms and
degrees of harm and victimisation of human populations.
Environmental victimisation generally involves, on the one hand,
powerful players such as corporations and nation-states and, on the
other, less powerful groups such as indigenous people, ethnic minorities,
the poor and those less able to take care of their own interests (such as
the elderly and the very young). The practical outcome of corporate
and government action has been to ensure that disadvantaged groups
end up living in the most hazardous and environmentally poor areas
(Pellow, 2007). This is so whether it is in the United States (Bullard,
1994), Canada (Chunn et al, 2002), India (Engel and Martin, 2006) or
Australia (Walker, 2006). Moreover, it is these kinds of communities that
also suffer most from the extraction of natural resources. Specifically, in
many places around the globe where minority or indigenous peoples
live, oil, timber and minerals are extracted in ways that devastate local
ecosystems and destroy traditional cultures and livelihoods (Schlosberg,
2004, 2007).
55
Environmental harm
Global warming describes the rising of the earth’s temperature over

a relatively short time span, while climate change describes the inter-
related effects of this rise in temperature: from changing sea levels
and changing ocean currents, through to the impacts of temperature
change on local environments that affect the endemic flora and fauna
in varying ways (for instance, the death of coral due to temperature
rises in sea water or the changed migration patterns of birds) (White,
2011; Lever-Tracy, 2011). The context of global warming, declining
oil resources and food crises puts even more of the world’s ecological
and economic burdens on the backs of the poor. As Shiva (2008: 5–6)
observes:
First, they are displaced from work; then they bear a

disproportionate burden of the costs of climate chaos
through extreme droughts, floods, and cyclones; and then
they lose once more when pseudo-solutions like industrial
biofuels divert their land and their food. Whether it is
industrial agriculture or industrial biofuels, car factories
or superhighways, displacement and forced evictions of
indigenous peoples and peasants from the land are an
inevitable consequence of an economic model that creates
growth by extinguishing people’s rights.
When it comes to climate change, there is a major rift between those

countries most contributing to global warming and those most at
risk from its effects. In a nutshell, ‘Many nations facing rising oceans,
increased droughts, or extreme disasters are those least responsible
for the problem and with the lowest levels of resources available to
cope with the resultant challenges’ (Anguelovski and Roberts, 2011:
19). The problems are compounded by a combination of population
growth and geographical location. For example, a growing proportion
of both the world’s total population and its urban population also lives
in low elevation coastal zones, a trend that is particularly evident in
the developing countries of Africa and Asia.
Those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are
the same groups who are vulnerable to events such as droughts, floods
and cyclones. The conventional approach to disasters is to see them
as ‘natural’ (and to include such things as earthquakes, volcanoes and
floods) or human-caused (relating to fires, explosions and oil spills)
(see Picou et al, 2009). In the context of major global changes in
climate, biodiversity and pollution, this presumption may no longer
56
be warranted, especially in the light of the anthropogenic causes for

much of this harm (Williams, 1996; Shiva, 2008).
Developing countries play host to a disproportionate number of
environmental victims due to the influence of international trade
regimes and natural resource extraction at the hands of multinational
companies (MNCs). Not everyone within developing countries
suffers or loses out under such arrangements, however. Disparities in
environmental justice also exist within these countries: ‘Within many
developing countries, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable and
impoverished communities including subsistence peasants, fishing
communities, and nomadic groups generally bear the brunt of negative
environmental change that is mostly caused by the resource extractive
operations of MNCs’ (Adeola, 2000: 688–9). Study of environment
related conflicts in the Amazon involving subsistence farmers,
agribusinesses, mining companies and governments confirm how social
inequalities are reflected in the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in such conflicts
(see Boekhout van Solinge, 2010a, b).
Ecological imperialism is not just about foreign transnational
corporations. As suggested above, it also involves local elites and, in
some cases, war lords. It can also involve ‘tribal’ divisions and social
divisions that are perpetuated precisely because they give advantage
vis-à-vis resource extraction. Such appears to be the case, for instance,
in Nigeria.
The three critical elements germane to internal colonialism

in Nigeria include (a) an ethnic-centered political hegemony,
tactically used to control and exploit the natural resources
of oil-rich minority communities for the benefit of the
dominant ethnic groups; (b) the union between the core
ethnic groups, MNOCs [multinational overseas companies],
political elites, the military, and other state enterprises
that generally represses the opportunity structures for the
minorities; and (c) devastating ecological disruption and the
subsequent destruction of the basic modes of subsistence of
the minority groups. (Adeola, 2000: 693–4)
Empirically, this is demonstrated by the political and economic

administration, and destructive environmental condition, of Ogoniland,
a situation in which the ethnic minorities have seen their human and
ecological rights eroded to the point of crisis.
Against these trends international NGOs are putting pressure
on governments and companies worldwide to uphold human and
57
Environmental harm
environmental rights (Clark, 2009).This is not without its ironies. For

example, while western (northern) companies dump toxic waste and
exploit people and resources in the South precisely because of the
differences in environmental (and labour) regulation in the advanced
developed countries compared with the peripheral nations, the reverse
can also happen. For example, in part due to pressure from NGO
activists (among other factors), China’s environmental related practices
in some regions of the world are better than those at home in China.
To put it differently, ‘China’s global operations may be governed by a
social and environmental commitment that is greater than even their
domestic practices, unlike northern corporations whose standards slip
when operating abroad’ (Widener, 2011: 176). Again, this is related to
political and economic considerations that relate directly to specific
regions (for example, South America compared with Africa) in which
Chinese corporations are operating. Different political regimes and
local social conditions thus shape the contours of environmental and
human rights, and respect or otherwise for these, depending upon
place and time.
Certain groups of people have experienced histories of victimisation
relating to the imposition of colonial power. This is intrinsically a
matter of resource colonisation, a phenomenon that affected many
different indigenous peoples in places such as South America, North
America and Australasia, as well as the native inhabitants of Africa,
Asia and beyond. In countries such as Australia, indigenous territories
were considered frontier lands that were un-owned, under-utilised and
therefore open to exploitation. The prior ownership rights, interests
and knowledges of indigenous inhabitants were treated as irrelevant
by the European invaders. Such disregard for the physical and cultural
wellbeing of indigenous people and their connection to ‘country’ was
also evident in how they and their lands were treated when it came to
nuclear testing, as well as in establishing mining interests (White and
Habibis, 2005). Environmental victimisation is central to dispossession
and maltreatment of indigenous peoples across many continents and
over a period of several centuries.
The resource wars against indigenous peoples are significant in regards
to scope, scale and impact.
Forty percent of the world’s countries (72 of 184) contain

peoples defined as native or indigenous. Worldwide, there
are over 350 million indigenous people representing some
5,250 nations. The invasion of these resource frontiers by
multinational corporations and nation-states has resulted
58
in the systematic displacement, dispossession, and, in some

cases, destruction of native communities. (Gedicks, 2005:
168–9)
What is at threat is not only the immediate physical needs of indigenous

and traditional peoples, but a whole way of life that frequently includes
hunting, fishing and small-scale agriculture. In the United States, for
example, the Chippewa people have fought against mining operations
on their lands, knowing that mining on their ceded lands would lead
to environmental destruction of the land and water, thereby destroying
their means of subsistence (Clark, 2002). As with similar activities
elsewhere, contamination of the natural world constitutes an assault
that goes to the heart of indigenous culture and identity.
These kinds of struggles are symptomatic of a long historical process
of internal colonisation of which confiscation of land and natural
resources has been a central feature. This was evident, for example,
in the early days of European global dominance, which saw specific
trading companies (for example, Hudson Bay Company) given
exclusive monopolies to plunder the New World of animal and mineral
products. Resource colonisation threatened every facet of traditional
indigenous life. The broad ethos was that the environment was there
to be exploited; this, in turn, ran counter to a concept that understood
the environment in terms of a balanced relationship between humans
and the ecosystem.
Similar disrespect and exploitation continues today. In Canada,
governments are eager to allow extraction industries to enter into
and fully work lands occupied by indigenous peoples, regardless of
the wishes of the local people (Rush, 2002). Mining and logging
operations create major environmental damage, a process that directly
affects the indigenous population’s health and well-being. Meanwhile,
in the United States, the history of repression of indigenous people is
such that they were forcibly relocated to previously unwanted lands
that contain some of the richest mineral deposits and other natural
resources in the country (such as uranium and low-sulphur coal). One
consequence of their forced removal to lands that are now wanted is that
‘The quest for natural resources, then, imposes specific environmental
risks on peoples such as Native Americans who reside near, and are
dependent on, natural resources’ (Field, 1998: 80). On the other hand,
pollution and contamination of water and fish in some regions directly
undermines the capacity of Native American culture and people to
continue to function and thrive (Schlosberg, 2007).
59
Environmental harm
In summary, there are different types of environmental victimisation.

Environmental victimisation may be direct or indirect, immediate or
long-lasting, local or regional. It may involve lead in soils, dioxins in
water, radioactivity in the atmosphere. It may be based upon routine
industrial practices or stem from specific events such as climate-related
disasters.The threat may be realised (due to actual presence or absence
of something in the environment) or be potential (for example, the
proposed privatisation of drinking water, or development plans to build
a dam or pulp mill). Children are much more vulnerable to some types
of environmental harm (for example, toxic chemicals) than are adults.
In other cases, victimisation is more a question of proximity to the
harm (for example, death and maiming related to explosions, poisoning
related to industrial emissions).
To fully gauge the nature, extent and dynamics of environmental
victimisation would demand systematic data collection and analysis. For
example, it has been suggested that an annual list should be compiled of
countries and transnational corporations engaged in the illicit dumping
of toxic and dangerous wastes in Africa and other developing countries,
and an annual list of persons killed, maimed or otherwise injured in
the developing countries through the illicit movement and dumping of
toxic and dangerous products and wastes (see Gwam, 2010). Similar lists
could be prepared with respect to other types of environmental harms.
Harm, place and the local

To appreciate fully the nature of environmental social injustice it is
essential to consider the physical location and scale of the harm within
particular geographical contexts. There are myriad different types of
harms, some of which are common across the world, while others are
specific to particular locales, regions and countries. The production
of global environmental harm is partly determined through complex
processes of transference (Heckenberg, 2010). Harm can move from
one place to another.The recent toxic incident in Hungary provides a
tragic illustration of this, when a thick red torrent of sludge burst from
a reservoir at an aluminium plant 100 kilometres south of Budapest in
early October 2010. At least nine people died as a result of the sludge
surge, some went missing and over one hundred people were physically
injured as the toxic substance flowed into nearby villages and towns,
subsequently threatening the Danube and the countries that border it.
The transformation of environments, and the interplay between
water, air and land, provides interesting challenges for interpretation
and analysis of environmental risk. For a start, it is essential to conceive
60
of risk in dynamic rather than fixed terms. Environmental harm may

originate in a specific location, but due to natural processes of water
and air movement and flow, it can spread to other parts of a city, region,
country or continent. A localised problem thus contains the seeds of a
global dilemma. Environmental harm such as dioxins in water is both
temporal and spatial in nature. That is, the harm itself actually moves
across time and space, covering wide areas and with long lasting effects.
Moreover, toxins accumulate over time. In other words, there is a
cumulative impact on waterways and aquatic life, and small amounts of
poison may eventually lead to great concentrations of toxicity in fish
and other living creatures of the water, with major social consequences
for fishers and human consumers of fish.
The transference of risk also manifests in other ways. For example, we
can refer to the monetarisation of risk – structural inequalities exploited
by risk producers (for example, pressures placed on communities to
accept toxic landfills on their land in return for financial compensation).
At issue here is what to do about LULUs (locally unwanted land uses),
and how the poor and disadvantaged are especially vulnerable to waste
transfers relating to these.The traffic in risk also occurs at the global level
where developing countries play the same role as poorer communities
within developed nations (for example, ‘business-friendly’ countries
that accept hazardous industries and toxic wastes) (see Pellow, 2007).
Also at issue is how to respond to NIMBY opposition within
developed countries (Julian, 2004).This is important because the direct
result of the NIMBY effect is to transfer the problem somewhere else.
Increasingly, the right to a safe environment has gained

currency in the United States and in other advanced
industrial states due largely to the proliferation of grassroots
activism (for example, the mainstream environmental
movement, toxic waste movement, environmental
justice movement, and so on), public awareness, efforts
of environmental organisations, media exposure of
environmental disasters, and strong legislative responses.
Paradoxically, these factors promoting the rights of citizens
to a safe and sound environment in core nations are the same
forces contributing to the violation of indigenous people’s
rights to a safe and ecologically balanced environment in
noncore nations.The flight of many MNCs to the interior
of Third World countries to avoid visibility, regulations,
liability, and environmental pollution accountability directly
61
Environmental harm
contributes to human rights and ecological rights violation.

(Adeola, 2000: 701)
Globalisation means that we are connected in many different ways.

It also means that producers and consumers are linked up through
complex commodity chains. In many cases, making one’s own home
safe contributes to making someone else’s a hazard.
Harm is a consequence of intended actions as well as general
negligence. In either case, there is little consideration for the actual
people who are victimised by acts or omissions, nor is there any sense
of a duty of care. Who is exploited is partly a function of what is to be
exploited, and where it is located.
Multinational mining, oil, and logging corporations are now

using advanced exploration technology, including remote
sensing and satellite photography, to identify resources in
the most isolated and previously inaccessible parts of the
world’s tropical rain forests, mountains, deserts, and frozen
tundras.What the satellites don’t reveal is the fact that native
peoples occupy much of the land containing these resources.
(Gedicks, 2005: 168)
In a shrinking world, the search for new development green fields and
for additional natural resources is intensifying and brings into play new
technologies that allow ever greater extraction and processing of the
Earth, as well as exploitation and victimisation of its people (Klare,
2012; Le Billon, 2012; Tsing, 2005).
Who is affected by activities carried out by powerful industries is also
partly a matter of where and when. For example, the Arctic region is
inhabited by some 4 million people including more than 30 indigenous
peoples. Eight states – Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States – have
territories in the Arctic region.While ostensibly a pristine environment
where local peoples rely upon traditional food sources, for decades
numerous pollutants have been making their impact on the Arctic
and the people and animals that live there (UNEP, 2007; EEA, 2010).
This pollution originated elsewhere, especially in industrial heartlands
such as the US, but the effect of transference has been devastating. In
some parts of the Arctic, for example, breastfeeding mothers have been
advised to supplement breast milk with powdered milk in order to
reduce their baby’s exposure to noxious chemicals.
62
Specific places demand specific analysis, yet these are intrinsically

linked to considerations that are universal in their relevance and
application. For instance, transnational environmental harm is always
located somewhere. That is, while risk and harm can be analysed in
terms of movements and transference from one place to another, it
is nonetheless imperative that threats to the environment be put into
specific regional and national contexts. This is important for several
reasons. First, environmental threats originate in particular factories,
farms, firms, industries and localities. Second, the political and policy
context within which threats to the environment emerge is shaped
by the nature of and interplay between local, national, regional and
international laws and conventions. What happens at the local and
regional level counts – whether we are referring to Nordic countries,
those of South Eastern Europe, Australasia or Latin America. What
happens at the local level is likewise implicated in decisions and
processes that transcend the merely local, given the complex ties and
international connections between businesses, governments, workers
and activists. For example, externalising harm frequently takes the
form of transferring waste from Europe, the United States and Japan
to non-metropole countries and regions such as Latin America, the
Caribbean, Africa and South and Southeast Asia (Pellow, 2007).
Place is defined in many different ways, and this shapes the
transference of harm across various types of boundaries. Some of
these are geographical, others are conceptual. For instance, consider
the distinction between ‘built’ and ‘natural’ environments. Pollution
from cars and factories in cities ends up in countrysides, while animal
waste from sprawling farms release odours in the air and toxic materials
into waterways that affect city dwellers downstream. A red sandstorm
generated off the land in South Australia ends up in the streets of
Sydney, many thousands of kilometers away.
While there are broad similarities in the types of environmental
crimes that traverse borders – such as pollution, the international
transfer of hazardous wastes, and the illegal trade in wildlife – it is still
necessary to examine such crimes in the context of their immediate
geographical and criminal specificity.The export of e-waste to South-
East Asia and to Africa, for example, has the same general drivers
as does the export of hazards, especially related to agriculture and
mining, to Latin America, but has quite different specific dynamics
(Elliot, 2007; Cifuentes and Frumkin, 2007). Illegal fishing varies
greatly depending upon location, and particular types of illegal fishing,
such as abalone (Australia), lobster (Canada) and toothfish (Southern
Ocean), show great variation in motives, techniques, local cultures
63
Environmental harm
and scale of operation (Tailby and Gant, 2002; McMullan and Perrier,
2002; Lugten, 2005). Elephant poaching in Africa is very different to
bio-prospecting in South America, while the taking of ‘bush meat’ is
a distinctive African phenomenon very different to illegal fishing by
Indonesian fishers off the coast of Australia (Lemieux and Clarke, 2009;
UNEP, 2007; White, 2008a).
There are, then, issues that are specific to particular regions of the
world. Huge tropical forests are found in the Amazon, an area that
encompasses several different countries such as Brazil and Colombia.
Similarly forests also cover parts of South-East Asia, spanning Indonesia,
Malaysia,Thailand and Burma, among other countries. Africa is home
to elephants, reptiles, giraffe and other creatures, that are unique to
particular parts of that continent, and not the preserve of any one
country. Desertification and drought are phenomena associated with
the dry lands of northern Africa and the island continent of Australia.
Meanwhile, cross-border pollution in Europe, and between China and
Russia, are matters that demand a regional rather than simply national
response. Acid rain traverses provincial and state demarcations and can
affect environments, animals and humans many kilometers away. A
nuclear accident in the Ukraine makes its presence felt in Britain, as
well as the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl.An explosion at a nuclear
power plant in northern Japan transfers radioactive materials worldwide
via air and ocean currents.
The ‘natural’ and the ‘social’ are conjoined in very specific ways in
particular geographical contexts. The study of environmental justice
can be enhanced by appreciation of different types of spaces. These
are summarised in Box 2.1, which outlines features pertaining to
geographical, political economic, and globalising spaces. How and why
particular groups suffer from environmental victimisation is framed by
matters of location.
Geographical spaces are defined here by reference to key features of
the natural environment.These determine the kinds of environmental
harms that possibly and usually take place. For example, the nature of
local air currents will bring in and prevent the flow of acid rain into a
particular valley. Political economic spaces refer to features of the social
environment, within which a range of stakeholders go about their
business and live their lives.This includes such factors as transportation,
technological devices and regulatory apparatus in a particular locale.
Globalising spaces refers to the vertical integration of many different
relationships and processes across the local–global continuum. People
and places are interconnected in different ways, by social and business
64
networks and through various human interactions. Spaces are unique

and specific, but simultaneously conjoined and universal.
Box 2.1: Features of different types of spaces

Geographical spaces: features of the ‘natural environment’
• local and regional ecologies (for example, biotic and abiotic characteristics)
• type of species (for example, specific plant and animal species)
• topography and land form (for example, mountains, valleys)
• flows and connections within and between areas (for example, ocean
currents, air currents, rivers and streams)
• climatic conditions (for example, monsoonal rains, hours of sunlight)
Political economic spaces: features of the ‘social and cultural

environment’
• local and regional industries (for example, agriculture, fishing, mining, tourism)
• role of local and transnational companies (for example, business interests)
• role of local and national state, namely regulation and governance (for
example, neoliberal policy, fiscal constraints)
• instrumental and intrinsic valuing of land, air, water, energy (for example,
commodification and profit, communal access and use)
• mechanisms for transference (for example, technology, free trade zones,
shipping).
Globalising spaces: key stakeholders dealing with localised issues

• integration of local, regional, national, international, transnational levels
• transnational drivers (for example, systemic imperatives of global capitalism)
• transnational actors (for example, corporations,World Trade Organization)
• transnational activists (for example, NGOs, governments in alliance)
• global networks (for example, social networking, environmental law
enforcement agencies)
Specific incidents, trends and issues can be analysed in terms of local

conditions and international influences.We might consider, for example,
issues pertaining to the ownership and control over heavily polluting
factories in Mexico, the transfer of toxic waste to the Ivory Coast due
to lax regulation and state corruption, the impact of forest sequestration
schemes on local communities in Africa, the involvement of eco-Mafia
in waste and pollution control in Naples, and the BP oil spill off the
coasts of Louisiana and Florida in the Gulf of Mexico. Each case
deserves close attention to specific factors arising from the particular
‘spaces’ in which they have emerged. Such analysis also provides the
65
Environmental harm
context for the emergence of specific types of criminal activity. For

instance, the decline of fisheries off the coast of Somalia, due to over-
fishing by many different nations and groups of fishers, has robbed the
local people of their main traditional livelihood. One consequence of
this has been the move into another line of work – the most notorious
being piracy on the high seas (see United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, 2011). We need to ask why this has happened, and why here?
Two brief case examples can be used to illustrate the importance of
linking harm and place.The first involves assessment of a hot mud flow
that occurred in East Java, Indonesia in 2006. From 29 May of that
year, a mud volcano began emitting ‘hot mud’ in the Sidoarjo district.
As a consequence, nearly 7,000 people were displaced from their
villages and over 12,000 medical treatments were carried out, mainly
for people affected by the release of hydrogen sulphide gas (United
Nations, 2006). The question for investigators was whether the mud
flow was generated by a natural disaster (earthquake) or was due to
anthropogenic causes (drilling).The mud started to flow two days after
an earthquake had struck Yogyakarta, Indonesia, killing almost 6,000
people. On the other hand, another possible explanation for the cause
of the mud volcano eruption was that a pressurised mud layer, which
also contained hydrogen sulphide, was pierced by the Banjar Panji I
gas drilling well, which was situated just 200 metres from the first
and largest flow.To interpret this event, one has to gather information
about the local geographical spaces, the local political economy and
international influences.
From one scientific point of view, it was suggested that the mud
volcano was mainly triggered by the energy released by the earthquake
rather than the drilling activity (Mazzini et al, 2007). This was based
on systematic study of the dynamics of mud volcanoes, and of the
nature of seismic and mud volcano in the specific region in question.
However, this finding has been disputed by other scientists who have
studied similar phenomenon (Davies et al, 2007). Furthermore, it has
been suggested that studies of this specific event were hindered by the
fact that the oil-drilling company, PT Lapindo Brantas, kept much
of the drilling data under wraps (see Cyranoski, 2007). Moreover, it
is notable that claims that this was just another ‘natural disaster’ were
actively proffered by one of the country’s most powerful and richest
men, who not only was a Minister in the Indonesian government
but a member of the family which part owns Lapindo. Alternative
explanations point to the workers at the well withdrawing their drill
too quickly thereby losing control of the pressure in the hole, and thus
precipitating the mud volcano.There were many vested interests linked
66
to the company and the event, including international partners in the

joint venture. Local geographical seismic conditions were conducive
to the event occurring, but so too was the presence of the drilling
well. The event has been variously interpreted by overseas observers,
national leaders and local community residents – depending upon their
backgrounds and circumstances.
The second case relates to the question of radioactivity in Sellafield,
England and Fukushima, Japan.The issue here is whether the spread of
radioactivity should be seen as a ‘natural disaster’ or simply a moment
waiting to happen. Sellafield made the news recently when a report
by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority concluded that if
only 1 per cent of the liquid radioactive waste stored at the Sellafield
nuclear power plant in Britain was released to air, the radioactive
fallout in western Norway could be five times higher than in the
areas of Norway that were worst affected by the Chernobyl accident
(Norway Ministry of the Environment, 2011).The Norwegian concern
was not unfounded. Sellafield has been subject to much criticism over
the years due to discharges of radioactive material, some accidental
and some allegedly deliberate. Prevailing sea currents transport any
radioactive materials leaked into the sea at Sellafield along the entire
coast of Norway.The Norwegian concern is to prevent further potential
environmental harm, knowing the risks and likelihood of just such
harm occurring is high.
The explosion and melt down at the Daiichi nuclear power plant
in Fukushima has been described as the most significant radioactive
event since Chernobyl.The lead-up to the event saw a massive tsunami
devastate the northern Japanese coastline. Again, the question has been
posed as to how and why this major leak was able to happen, and
whether the cause was anthropogenic or natural. The short answer
is that the nuclear power industry in Japan has a terrible reputation
when it comes to health and safety provisions, for sharing of essential
knowledge about nuclear facilities, and for planning and responding
to nuclear power plant events (Takemura, 2012). In essence, this was
a nuclear disaster that was waiting to happen, as those who have long
objected to the placement of such plants near earthquake fault lines
have tirelessly pointed out.The local geography makes the construction
of such plants intrinsically dangerous; but it is local and international
politics (including the support of the United Nations International
Atomic Energy Agency) that ensured that Fukushima was, eventually,
to hit the world headlines.
Environmental victimisation thus ought to be examined within
the context of specific places and spaces. The precise nature of
67
Environmental harm
environmental harm will vary depending upon the mix of physical,

social, political, cultural and economic features that characterise a
particular location.
Transborder conflicts over land

While environmental harm is localised in many respects (in that it
originates somewhere specific and spreads out from there), this is
not always the case. For example, borders do not have much material
relevance when it comes to the environmental harm associated with
global warming. Climate change affects us all, regardless of where we
live, regardless of social characteristics. However, the effects of climate
change, while felt by everyone, are not the same for everyone (White,
2012). There are crucial differences in how different groups and
classes of people are situated quite differently in relation to key risk
and protective factors. Indeed, it has been estimated that over half the
world’s population is potentially at risk (Smith andVivekananda, 2007).
The consequences of global warming will have the greatest impact on
those least able to cope with climate-related changes.
The conflicts pertaining to diminished environmental resources, to
the impacts of global warming, to differential access and use of nature,
and to friction stemming from the cross-border transference of harm
are overlaid by questions of class and state power, and the histories and
contemporary manifestations of imperialism and colonialism. At the
centre of contemporary and future conflicts are land and people, and
basic questions about ownership, control and access.
When water for drinking dries up and natural disasters destroy
productive lands, when subsistence fishing, farming and hunting withers
due to overexploitation and climate change, and when present systems
of aquaculture and agriculture fail to meet actual need, then great
shifts in human populations and in resource use will take place (see,
for example, Refugee Studies Centre, 2008). From the point of view
of national interests and international security, the mass movement
of peoples is generally presented as a significant problem (Solana and
Ferrero-Waldner, 2008). In particular, there is a popular inclination to
view third-world ecological ruin as first and foremost a threat to first-
world stability and existing wealth. Typically, for the ‘rich’ nations the
first response to asylum seekers has been containment and coercive
law enforcement (Pickering, 2005).
As environmental conditions deteriorate due to global warming, the
size and extent of migration will be shaped by geography, global power
relations and political struggles over human rights. Some people will
68
flee and be criminalised for seeking asylum; others will stay, to fight
for dwindling resources in their part of the world. Communities will
be pitted against each other, and industries against communities. Law
and order will be increasingly more difficult to maintain, much less
enforce in other than repressive ways. Border control, in this case, is
about restricting the movement of the vulnerable into the domain of
those who ‘have’.
On the other hand, there is considerable transborder movement, of
a particular kind, by those who have the power and resources to do so.
Indeed, a key area of conflict is around land use and ownership involving
international forces and parties. Here we can already see a series of
developments that put into sharp focus the vested interests of specific
industries, companies and nation-states – over and above the interests
and needs of local communities.The contemporary food and financial
crises have worked in tandem to trigger substantial changes in global
land ownership (Share The World’s Resources, 2009; Grain Briefing,
2008). Much of this is being driven by both the direct impacts of
climate change (that is, the search for new sources of food production)
and policy responses to climate change (for example, carbon emission
trading schemes). Systematic forms of injustice are being perpetrated
under the guise of ‘free market’ opportunities, purported conservation-
oriented agendas and strategic development.
Land grab for food

There has been a rush to control land outside of one’s own national
borders insofar as it is needed to supply food and energy to sustain
one’s own population and society into the future. For example, it has
been observed that the world food price crisis of 2007–8 shocked some
national governments of countries that cannot produce sufficient food
of their own, and the response of Middle East and northern African
countries, South Korea and India was to secure their own national
food security by finding other lands that would support them (Borras
and Franco, 2010). Large-scale agricultural investment is of benefit
to transnational agribusiness (as opposed to small and medium sized
farmers and pastoralists) and to governments such as China which
import the food for its own population. Foreign countries become
the directly controlled source of food for the country of origin. The
result is a commodification of food production, for export, involving
industrial farming and mono-cropping.The ‘winners’ are big companies
and foreign governments. The ‘losers’ are local communities, small
farmers and consumers in the host country.
69
Environmental harm
Displacement from homelands is accelerating through the acquisition

by foreign governments and private companies of large areas of arable
land in developing countries. Thus
Parcels of several hundred thousands of hectares are being

bought or leased in Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, and
Eastern Europe by food-importing countries with domestic
land and water constraints but abundant capital, such as the
Gulf States, and by countries with large populations and
food security concerns, such as China, South Korea and
India. (Sutherland et al, 2009: 5)
These land acquisitions are having major negative impacts on local

people who are losing access and control over the resources on
which they depend, and which are the rightful inheritance of future
generations.
Land grab for biofuels

At the same time, communal lands are under threat due to private
and government pressures to introduce income-generating crops such
as biofuels in countries such as Brazil and Argentina (Robin, 2010;
Engdahl, 2007; Shiva, 2008). The problem here is twofold. First, lands
are being converted from food production to biofuel production,
thereby reducing the amount of food available and leading to escalating
prices for crops such as soya and corn (White, 2011). Second, formerly
communal lands are being forcibly seized by companies and/or
governments and transferred into private hands.The ‘ownership’ as well
as the use of the land is being rejigged in favour of private interests
and private profits. This is achieved not only by direct force, but by
policies that reward biofuel production through subsidies and quota
systems.The ‘winners’ are the new energy barons and their partners in
government. Again, local consumers and communities lose out.
Land grab for carbon emission trading

The issue of carbon colonialism is emerging as a form of climate
injustice. This relates to the harnessing of forests as carbon sinks (on
the part of commercial interests in developed countries) for which
credits can be earned and finance provided to developing countries,
particularly biodiverse countries such as those in Latin America. The
governments of such countries stand to gain financially from such
70
arrangements, often at the expense of local communities. It has been

alleged, for example, that a Norwegian company operating in Uganda
leased its lands for a sequestration project that is said to have resulted
in 8,000 people in 13 villages being evicted (Bulkeley and Newell,
2010: 48). The effects of the commodification of carbon (that is, its
extraction from local contexts and circulation in global markets) will
thus put pressure on communities that are home to these resources.
Lands in less developed countries are also being taken over by
governments, companies and conservation groups ostensibly for
purposes of ecological sustainability and climate change mitigation.
For example, there are businesses that are keen to secure money as part
of carbon sequestration schemes, usually involving companies based
in Europe offsetting their pollution by buying carbon credits in the
form of forests in other parts of the world. For others, the motivation
is less financial than ecological, at least in intent. Here we can include
western conservation groups and movements that both historically
and today are usurping the lands of traditional and indigenous peoples
in the name of conservation (Jacoby, 2001; Duffy, 2010). Corporate
funding largess to mainstream conservation groups also contributes
to the overall strategy, one that disenfranchises traditional owners and
users from their own lands.
Land grab for toxic waste disposal

As noted above, pollutants, such as e-waste, are being shipped to
peripheral areas and countries for processing and disposal.There is also
a land grab for toxic waste disposal. For instance, the forced or co-opted
acquisition of indigenous land is not only related to carbon emission
trading schemes and the push to plant biofuels, but is also associated
with the establishment of nuclear waste dumps and disposal of hazardous
wastes more generally (Boylan, 2010). As with the general pattern, it
is the most vulnerable who are likely to suffer from both take-over of
land and radical transformation of existing land use. Likewise, this type
of ‘garbage imperialism’ feeds upon those who seek fiscal relief in the
very moment that it sustains a racist and classist culture and ideology
that views toxic dumping on poor communities of colour as perfectly
acceptable (Pellow, 2007).
Land grab for alternative commercial purposes

Deforestation is another example of changing land uses. It is not just
that grain production is changing in form (toward industrial) and
71
Environmental harm
content (toward biofuels), but so-called ‘unproductive’ or forested lands

are being transformed into profit-making ventures.These are not only
agricultural in nature. Big disputes are occurring in the Amazon over
the impact of mining and pastoral industries in regards to deforestation
(Boekhout van Solinge, 2010a, b). Meanwhile in developed countries
there is much consternation over the environmental impact of ‘fracking’,
a technique that involves the use of toxic chemicals to extract coal
seam gas (Cleary, 2012). The main protagonists are, on the one side,
companies, and on the other farmers and environmentalists. Profit and
power are the key determinants in these debates, as is the extent of
community mobilisation and politicisation of the issues.
There are different cultural understandings and meanings attached
to ‘land’ and ‘country’ that reflect traditional, cultural and livelihood
interests. However, where the dominant social construction of ‘property’
is a relationship of exclusive use based upon documented ownership,
then any sense of a ‘commons’ and community interests is diminished
(see Chapter Five). Moreover, in the context of rhetoric supporting
the ‘national interest’, there is also impetus for commercial production
to take place on what is formally considered ‘public lands’, including
in some cases what has ordinarily been treated as ‘traditional’ shared
lands. Indeed this is the biggest target for worldwide land grabs and
includes, for example, the majority of land in Africa, Indonesia and
the Philippines. The land grabs described above are for all intents and
purposes not simply about governance, but about the very basis of land
sovereignty – the effective control over the nature, pace, extent and
direction of surplus production, distribution and disposition (Borras and
Franco, 2010). It is about ownership and control over land resources.
Land grabbing is occurring at the hands of many different agents, and
for different purposes worldwide. Not all of the changes to land use are
‘bad’; in exceptional circumstances, for example, industrial production
has been transformed back into small-scale production designed for
local consumption and sustainable living (Borras and Franco, 2010).
It is also important to acknowledge the complexities of changes in
land use by closely considering how land is being reconfigured, by
whom and for what purposes.Transnational corporations and ‘foreign’
governments are not the only or even necessarily always the central
players in the land use shuffle. National bourgeoisie and state elites are
frequently willing partners in the plunder, and may well encourage
foreign investment and take-overs as a key platform of economic
development. The ‘national interest’ is linked with the idea of ‘bio-
security’ in ways that ideologically and materially tend to prop up the
most powerful sectors of state and private enterprise.
72
Conclusion: measuring the value of human life
Environmental victimisation is not a socially neutral process, but is

constructed at the intersection between social inequality, unequal
power relationships and the subjective experience of victims. The
majority of victims of environmental degradation – stemming from
industrial and commercial activities, global warming, loss of biodiversity
and increased waste and pollution – are very often the poor and the
dispossessed.While all are threatened by global environmental disaster,
there remain large social differences in the likelihood of exposure and
subsequent resilience to injury, harm and suffering. For those who
disproportionately bear the brunt of global patterns of environmental
transformation, degradation and victimisation, big questions arise as to
who will compensate them for their often prolonged suffering, now
and into the future.
When it comes to measuring the value of human life some people
count more than others and in some circumstances the health and
wellbeing of certain people will be sacrificed on the altar of profit.This
can be quantified in terms of United Nations figures on world poverty,
on disease, on illnesses related to air pollution, on life expectancy and
other similar measures. It is also measurable in terms of production
processes worldwide in which destruction of local environments is part
and parcel of resource extraction and the recycling of commodities.
The open burning, acid baths and toxic dumping pour

pollution into the land, air and water and exposes the men,
women and children of Asia’s poorer peoples to poison.The
health and economic costs of this trade are vast and, due
to export, are not born by the western consumers nor the
waste brokers who benefit from the trade. (Basel Action
Network/Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 2002: 1)
In this example, the atrocity and suffering related to environmental

harm is linked a basic denial of human rights.This is not only evident in
disparities in access to resources or in environmental living conditions; it
is also found in the activities of regimes and companies that use violence
against those who would dare threaten their economic and political
interests.This has led some to argue that since environmental injustice
and human rights are inextricably interwoven, the former should be
recognised as a major component of the latter (Adeola, 2000: 687).
This story is familiar the world over, including within developed
countries. It is a story of lack of care for those who are culturally and
73
Environmental harm
socially constructed as Other, and therefore free of the obligations

of compassion and compensation. Denial of harm on the part of
the advantaged and socially privileged is easier when stereotypes,
denigrating images and self interest are mobilised in order to ignore.
The fact that environmental victims are frequently drawn from the
ranks of the poor, the disadvantaged and the minority has significant
ramifications. Such victims fit into the category of ‘socially expendable
victims’ (Fattah, 2010). That is, no one really cares what happens to
these specific individuals and groups, since they are already devalued
in wider community terms. As Engel and Martin (2006: 479) put it:
‘If victims are perceived as degraded in some sense, then it does not
seem so unfair when bad things happen to them.’
The ‘value’ of human life is thus constructed in social and economic
terms. Environmental injustice is accomplished precisely through the
devaluing of those who suffer the consequences of decisions made
somewhere else, for purposes not of their own making, and in the
interests of those who will never share their environmental risks and
harms.
74

Environmental Justice and Harm To Humans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Justice and Harm To Humans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two

Environmental justice and

Analysis of environmental harm is premised on the idea that someone

and use of specific natural resources in defined geographical areas, and

most in particular places around the world.

The main focus of this chapter is to explore how environmental

Contentious concepts: environmental justice

Man (sic) has a fundamental right to freedom, equality and

This principle encapsulates two key obligations: first, intergenerational

(of a Tasmanian tourism icon; of the destruction of oyster farms), rather

Health is the main focus of the environmental justice

The concept of environmental equity refers to attempts to reduce

Environmental discrimination is at the heart of the EJ project.According

have a right to be protected from environmental degradation) and harm

1992 Rio Declaration

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary

1998 Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or

The precautionary principle has been integrated into the regulatory

It asks ‘How little harm is possible?’ rather than ‘How much

Moreover, the environmental social justice framework requires that

related to lack of knowledge of the environmental harm, alternative

Social patterns of harm and risk

production processes in industries such as forestry, coal and uranium

most likely to be uninformed of the risks, and less likely to be aware

In our communities, the smell coming from sewage plants

The unequal distribution of exposure to environmental risks, whether

pesticides to prevent the spread of disease borne by mosquitoes, there

These releases are known to contaminate fish, and so the

Vulnerability to environmental harm, therefore, is also due to social

Global warming describes the rising of the earth’s temperature over

First, they are displaced from work; then they bear a

When it comes to climate change, there is a major rift between those

be warranted, especially in the light of the anthropogenic causes for

The three critical elements germane to internal colonialism

Empirically, this is demonstrated by the political and economic

environmental rights (Clark, 2009).This is not without its ironies. For

Forty percent of the world’s countries (72 of 184) contain

in the systematic displacement, dispossession, and, in some

What is at threat is not only the immediate physical needs of indigenous

In summary, there are different types of environmental victimisation.

Harm, place and the local

of risk in dynamic rather than fixed terms. Environmental harm may

Increasingly, the right to a safe environment has gained

contributes to human rights and ecological rights violation.

Globalisation means that we are connected in many different ways.

Multinational mining, oil, and logging corporations are now

Specific places demand specific analysis, yet these are intrinsically

networks and through various human interactions. Spaces are unique

Box 2.1: Features of different types of spaces

Political economic spaces: features of the ‘social and cultural

Globalising spaces: key stakeholders dealing with localised issues

Specific incidents, trends and issues can be analysed in terms of local

context for the emergence of specific types of criminal activity. For

to the company and the event, including international partners in the

environmental harm will vary depending upon the mix of physical,

Transborder conflicts over land

Land grab for food

Displacement from homelands is accelerating through the acquisition

Parcels of several hundred thousands of hectares are being

These land acquisitions are having major negative impacts on local

Land grab for biofuels

Land grab for carbon emission trading