Summary
Author Julian Agyeman’s introduction describes the basic principles of Environmental Justice (EJ) and outlines what he will be addressing in his book Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. Agyeman introduces three main movements of environmental thought as they relate to social justice. The three are Environmental Justice Paradigm (EJP), the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), and the Just Sustainability Paradigm (JSP). Agyeman describes the EJP as one that integrates “…class, race, gender, environment and social justice concerns.” The NEP takes a very different take as it “…sets an environmental stewardship and sustainability agenda…”, but “…has little to say about equity or justice.” Agyeman places these two schools of thought on the opposite ends of the social justice spectrum and introduces JSP as falling somewhere between the two “…acting as a bridge spanning the continuum…”. He goes on to give a bit of the differences but points to Chapters 3 & 4 where he outlines JSP in theory (Chap. 3) and in practice (Chap. 4). Agyeman concludes his introduction by setting the goals for his book, which basically involves explaining and justifying the JSP, and outlining the layout of the chapters as a means to do so.
Chapter 1 provides a history of Environmental Justice, and then slowly builds throughout the chapter towards the description of a scientific means for measuring EJ in towns and cities using the metropolitan Boston area as an example.
Critique
Equity vs. Cost/Benefit:
My major critique of Agyeman is in the underpinnings of his basic premise used when creating a community scoreboard-like tool for delivering environmental justice. Agyeman makes an enormous assumption that I am unwilling to make. Agyeman believes that equity should serve as the primary driver for determining how to prioritize environmental efforts. According to Agyeman, if town A has 200 points, and town B has 150 points town A is more deserving or in need of positive environmental action. The underpinning idea being; work to create a situation of social equality… this will be environmentally just. Critiquing this approach is difficult because of people’s want for equality and their passion in the pursuit of that equality. However, consider the situation where a particular environmental remediation in town B could be done at 1/3rd the cost and produce two times the result? A greater number of people could experience a greater benefit for fewer dollars (assume state dollars in this example). The direct pursuit of equity forgoes this cost – benefit approach and chooses to ignore, what some will call a greater good in favor of the creation of local equity among towns.
Over-categorization:
Agyeman’s description of the three basic EJ perspectives is well thought out and delivered clearly. The only concern that I had was that I found it unlikely that the wide variety of organizations cited categorize themselves tightly into the three groups as cleanly as Agyeman does. I do not criticize Agyeman’s use of categorization, but the absoluteness of his placements I found to be a little convenient for the sake of a clean argument.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Ch 2: The Sustainability Discourse and Sustainable Communities
I chose to read Chapter 2 in Agyeman because after reading several chapter introductions I felt this chapter would give the most comprehensive look at EJ and sustainable communities, it included a case study and ended by looking at policy tools. It is important to bring EJ into our discourse because as Agyeman points out, EJ is often left out of broader definitions of sustainability. Agyeman differentiates between environmental sustainability and just sustainability, making an important argument that, as we have read, sustainability is not only about natural resources and conservation, but also about the health and well-being of all inhabitants in our cities. A criticism that is often leveled at the sustainability movement is that it does not address issues of social justice as much as its "primary concern is the efficient use of natural resources within a capitalist framework." (p. 40). Agyeman echoes some of our class discussion acknowledging that the we know scientifically what we need to do but in many cases we lack the tools for implementation. As a relative newcomer to the sustainability movement I was particularly intrigued by Agyeman's summary of the international commitment to sustainability as early as 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (Agenda 21).
I was also unaware and impressed (and then depressed) by his comparison of the Clinton-Gore President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to the Bush administration's Working for a Sustainable World. While the Clinton-Gore PCSD emphasized domestic policy and the need for America to collaborate internationally, the Bush agenda has been to support sustainability in other countries but to ignore any significant change on the part of the world's biggest polluter.
Agyeman's summary of effective policy in US cities is worth reading in Chapter 2, but I will not summarize it here (pp. 58-61).
The chapter ends with a comparison of narrow-focus and broad-focus civic environmentalism. Agyeman makes the interesting point that broad-focus environmentalism leaves an opeing of coalition building that can include EJ in the sustainability movement because it provides a more holistic approach to environmentalism that is more systems based as opposed to project based.
Although Agyeman states that we know scientifically what to do to implement sustainability, "we just need to do it", his arguments about the importance of just sustainability show that perhaps we should spend more time focusing on how our definition can be more encompassing, also ensuring that when we undertake policy changes we are always mindful of EJ. I am not familiar enough with the EJ movement, nor with Agyeman's expansion on this point in other chapters but it seems to me that energy needs to be focused on addressing those who have historically been disadvantaged. I must say that I noticed myself thinking, "instead of in my community" and that I need to expand my idea of community to be more encompassing. I'm thinking about this a lot as I work on my social goals in my journal.
I was also unaware and impressed (and then depressed) by his comparison of the Clinton-Gore President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to the Bush administration's Working for a Sustainable World. While the Clinton-Gore PCSD emphasized domestic policy and the need for America to collaborate internationally, the Bush agenda has been to support sustainability in other countries but to ignore any significant change on the part of the world's biggest polluter.
Agyeman's summary of effective policy in US cities is worth reading in Chapter 2, but I will not summarize it here (pp. 58-61).
The chapter ends with a comparison of narrow-focus and broad-focus civic environmentalism. Agyeman makes the interesting point that broad-focus environmentalism leaves an opeing of coalition building that can include EJ in the sustainability movement because it provides a more holistic approach to environmentalism that is more systems based as opposed to project based.
Although Agyeman states that we know scientifically what to do to implement sustainability, "we just need to do it", his arguments about the importance of just sustainability show that perhaps we should spend more time focusing on how our definition can be more encompassing, also ensuring that when we undertake policy changes we are always mindful of EJ. I am not familiar enough with the EJ movement, nor with Agyeman's expansion on this point in other chapters but it seems to me that energy needs to be focused on addressing those who have historically been disadvantaged. I must say that I noticed myself thinking, "instead of in my community" and that I need to expand my idea of community to be more encompassing. I'm thinking about this a lot as I work on my social goals in my journal.
Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice (SCEJ), Introduction, Chapters 1 and 4
Since I have no background or familiarity with the history of EJ movements or principles, I had to do some catch-up reading, so I read the introduction followed by chapters one and four. What I learned was that I’ve cared about EJ for a long time—in fact, I would say that my main career objective (good-quality affordable housing) is rooted in EJ; I just didn’t know the term for it.
What I appreciated about the reading was Agyeman’s rigorous methodology and disciplined thinking (the lack of which I found somewhat onerous in Hallsmith’s writing). The Introduction briefly outlines the commonalities and schisms between EJ and sustainability, stemming primarily from the sustainability movement’s failure to include social equity among its goals. And while I agree with this assessment in theory, I might counter that argument by pointing out that at a decentralized, grassroots level, many advocates for sustainability are likely to also support EJ movements. I imagine that one possible reason for this is because on a national level, organizations like WWF or the Sierra Club must remain focused on furthering their mission, and the fundraising and membership structures that support the financial goals of the organization may be sufficiently sensitive to dissuade major change to the mission. The reason, then, that the interconnectedness between the two movements would play out on a local level is one, the absence of fundraising imperatives, and two, the ability to more clearly see the relationship between EJ and sustainability in the context of one local issue. Agyeman goes on to develop this notion (crystallized as JSP) in Chapter 1 vis-à-vis the Mystic Watershed problem, and in Chapter 4 by giving the backgrounds of various organizations around the country that particularly embody the principles of JSP through their dual foci of environmental sustainability and social equity.
Clearly, the rationale and approach as outlined by Ken Reardon is heavily weighted toward a JSP. It proposes using the participatory principles of EJ to motivate sustainable, equitable solutions to community challenges. From my perspective as a future real estate developer hoping to work on large-scale, mixed-use and mixed-income projects, participatory planning is de rigeur: there is simply no other way to go about getting all the various community approvals, permits, and financing needed to develop these massive projects. To fail to include community stakeholders would be fatal. However, the one aspect of participatory planning and other deliberative inclusionary processes that I take issue with is the time horizon. Ordinary citizens have to realize that time is money, and most offers have an expiration date embedded in them. No business entity is going to wait indefinitely for a community to decide what’s important, to whom, and what the rules are. The need to be proactive about establishing values and vision is critical to being able to attract (fend off) the right (wrong) opportunities as they arise; the alternative is to stagnate, to be closed off to any opportunity for change, and ultimately fail to thrive.
What I appreciated about the reading was Agyeman’s rigorous methodology and disciplined thinking (the lack of which I found somewhat onerous in Hallsmith’s writing). The Introduction briefly outlines the commonalities and schisms between EJ and sustainability, stemming primarily from the sustainability movement’s failure to include social equity among its goals. And while I agree with this assessment in theory, I might counter that argument by pointing out that at a decentralized, grassroots level, many advocates for sustainability are likely to also support EJ movements. I imagine that one possible reason for this is because on a national level, organizations like WWF or the Sierra Club must remain focused on furthering their mission, and the fundraising and membership structures that support the financial goals of the organization may be sufficiently sensitive to dissuade major change to the mission. The reason, then, that the interconnectedness between the two movements would play out on a local level is one, the absence of fundraising imperatives, and two, the ability to more clearly see the relationship between EJ and sustainability in the context of one local issue. Agyeman goes on to develop this notion (crystallized as JSP) in Chapter 1 vis-à-vis the Mystic Watershed problem, and in Chapter 4 by giving the backgrounds of various organizations around the country that particularly embody the principles of JSP through their dual foci of environmental sustainability and social equity.
Clearly, the rationale and approach as outlined by Ken Reardon is heavily weighted toward a JSP. It proposes using the participatory principles of EJ to motivate sustainable, equitable solutions to community challenges. From my perspective as a future real estate developer hoping to work on large-scale, mixed-use and mixed-income projects, participatory planning is de rigeur: there is simply no other way to go about getting all the various community approvals, permits, and financing needed to develop these massive projects. To fail to include community stakeholders would be fatal. However, the one aspect of participatory planning and other deliberative inclusionary processes that I take issue with is the time horizon. Ordinary citizens have to realize that time is money, and most offers have an expiration date embedded in them. No business entity is going to wait indefinitely for a community to decide what’s important, to whom, and what the rules are. The need to be proactive about establishing values and vision is critical to being able to attract (fend off) the right (wrong) opportunities as they arise; the alternative is to stagnate, to be closed off to any opportunity for change, and ultimately fail to thrive.
Agyeman: Chapter 3 "Just Sustainability in Theory"
I chose to read chapter three in order to gain more background into sustainability policy and methodology. Agyeman lays out the statement that his intent for this chapter is to locate the overlap between the JSP (just sustainability paradigm) and the NEP (new environmental paradigm) in conjunction with the EJP (environmental justice paradigm). Although i must say for me this connection was an interesting one but not the message or issue that i most took away with me.
The concept that struck me the hardest was that of the "civil rights" divide that occurs among those most involved in sustainability efforts. He says that "the majority of current sustainability action is generally seen as being through local action involving multistakeholder partnerships." I believe that i do agree with this very rarely is sustainability a whole-community action it is general action taken by those motivated few. He uses the term multistakeholders to describe these people and i believe that i would agree with him however i am not exactly clear as to what it refers to in terms of the community.
He continues by making the very the blunt statement that "traditional environmentalists, and the organizations that hire them, are predominantly middle and upper-middle class, male, and white." He continues by saying that "environmentalists not working in the EJ (environmental justice) movement tend to have a college or postgraduate degree, work in a proffessional job, and own a home." I know that this topic of "segregation" or "civil rights" does not have a lot in direct relation with environmental policy but it struck me pretty hard. I do not fully agree that we can make the full generalization about middle class, white, male environmentalists but i do believe that there is a definite cultural split in the world of environmental action, and i do not know why. I would say that my best guess is that of education it appears that the more educated become more environmentally aware, but if we are all taking advantage of teh same resources shouldn't we all be aware. I do not believe that it is socio-economic status because it definitely does not take an abundance of money or donations to be environmentally aware. His second point about the EJ is something that i do not agree with i would say that the more educated would be more inclined to be a part of the EJ whicle he is defending the conrary.
As mentioned earlier i know that this is not a huge portion of the chapter but i believe that the people and demographic involved in environmental issues is an important one and i think that understanding where and why the split occurs could really help in allieviating the social environemental divide. He says that in his opinion a menthod of helping more people become aware and involved is to focus on the procedures or the processes by which groups achieve their mandated aims thsi will help to create a more diverse base of support. I believe that self evaluation is always important but i believe that this statement is very broad and generalized it gives no specific reference as to how an examination of proccesses will ultimitely help diversity. Diversity is extremely important and to me one of the keys of sustainability in the community, but it is a very difficult goal to achieve and we must really examine why diversity occurs and then how individual proccesses are further facilitating the diverse trends.
The concept that struck me the hardest was that of the "civil rights" divide that occurs among those most involved in sustainability efforts. He says that "the majority of current sustainability action is generally seen as being through local action involving multistakeholder partnerships." I believe that i do agree with this very rarely is sustainability a whole-community action it is general action taken by those motivated few. He uses the term multistakeholders to describe these people and i believe that i would agree with him however i am not exactly clear as to what it refers to in terms of the community.
He continues by making the very the blunt statement that "traditional environmentalists, and the organizations that hire them, are predominantly middle and upper-middle class, male, and white." He continues by saying that "environmentalists not working in the EJ (environmental justice) movement tend to have a college or postgraduate degree, work in a proffessional job, and own a home." I know that this topic of "segregation" or "civil rights" does not have a lot in direct relation with environmental policy but it struck me pretty hard. I do not fully agree that we can make the full generalization about middle class, white, male environmentalists but i do believe that there is a definite cultural split in the world of environmental action, and i do not know why. I would say that my best guess is that of education it appears that the more educated become more environmentally aware, but if we are all taking advantage of teh same resources shouldn't we all be aware. I do not believe that it is socio-economic status because it definitely does not take an abundance of money or donations to be environmentally aware. His second point about the EJ is something that i do not agree with i would say that the more educated would be more inclined to be a part of the EJ whicle he is defending the conrary.
As mentioned earlier i know that this is not a huge portion of the chapter but i believe that the people and demographic involved in environmental issues is an important one and i think that understanding where and why the split occurs could really help in allieviating the social environemental divide. He says that in his opinion a menthod of helping more people become aware and involved is to focus on the procedures or the processes by which groups achieve their mandated aims thsi will help to create a more diverse base of support. I believe that self evaluation is always important but i believe that this statement is very broad and generalized it gives no specific reference as to how an examination of proccesses will ultimitely help diversity. Diversity is extremely important and to me one of the keys of sustainability in the community, but it is a very difficult goal to achieve and we must really examine why diversity occurs and then how individual proccesses are further facilitating the diverse trends.
Agyeman: Ch.4: Just Sustainability in Practice
Summary: I chose to read this chapter because for me, it is most interesting to know what other people and organizations are DOING. For me the theory is not too difficult; it is putting this or that theory into practice that is most challenging.
Agyeman wants to provide the reader with examples of organizations who are really taking action in a successful and sustainable (?) way. In order to do this, he develops a Just Sustainability Index (JSI) by which he reviews and categorizes organizations who propose to do environmental work. Agyeman wants to know if what they're as committed to saving the environment as they are to serving humans equitably as well. Whether his index answers this question, I'm not sure.
The chapter centers around the JSI as the author gives a short summary of the practices and mission statements of three organizations per five categories. The categories are: land-use planning, solid waste, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transportation.
The chapter is less than inspiring in the beginning: Agyeman, as he researches for his index, finds that hardly any organizations show a commitment to his search terms of equity, justice, and/or sustainability.
Critique:
There is not too much to criticize in this chapter as Agyeman does exactly as he proposes to do. I would wish for a few changes, however. I was hoping for a little more than a simple summary of these organizations who seem to be doing really interesting things: maybe fewer summaries and more meat in each one? For instance, in the category "Toxic Chemical Use," he talks about the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and their celebration of Earth Day in which they encourage marginalized community to take responsibility for the planet. Now, maybe I am wrong, but it seems that especially people who have resources available should be taking responsibility. It just feels like saying, well, we tossed you into this mess, and now you ought to dig yourselves out. Maybe this isn't what the author or the organization was trying to portray. I hope not. I guess I was looking for some more of his opinion, to dig a little deeper and ask the how and why questions, rather than simply what.
Usefulness:
There is a man called Paul Ray who wrote a book called "Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World." He writes that in reality there are literally millions of people who are socially aware, and creatively working to change and reshape the world--but hardly anyone know each other. I thought the chapter I read was useful and interesting for two reasons. Not only was the author making an effort to connect people with movements happening across the country, but within each vignette he clearly shows that in almost every one, half the battle of the work they were doing was to create coalitions, connect people--to join together and have a strong base and a holistic approach.
This clearly connects to the reading form Ken Reardon who, very helpfully I thought, goes through step by step the process he's followed in participatory planning. (In order to have participation, we better be able to connect to one another!)
Agyeman wants to provide the reader with examples of organizations who are really taking action in a successful and sustainable (?) way. In order to do this, he develops a Just Sustainability Index (JSI) by which he reviews and categorizes organizations who propose to do environmental work. Agyeman wants to know if what they're as committed to saving the environment as they are to serving humans equitably as well. Whether his index answers this question, I'm not sure.
The chapter centers around the JSI as the author gives a short summary of the practices and mission statements of three organizations per five categories. The categories are: land-use planning, solid waste, toxic chemical use, residential energy use, and transportation.
The chapter is less than inspiring in the beginning: Agyeman, as he researches for his index, finds that hardly any organizations show a commitment to his search terms of equity, justice, and/or sustainability.
Critique:
There is not too much to criticize in this chapter as Agyeman does exactly as he proposes to do. I would wish for a few changes, however. I was hoping for a little more than a simple summary of these organizations who seem to be doing really interesting things: maybe fewer summaries and more meat in each one? For instance, in the category "Toxic Chemical Use," he talks about the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and their celebration of Earth Day in which they encourage marginalized community to take responsibility for the planet. Now, maybe I am wrong, but it seems that especially people who have resources available should be taking responsibility. It just feels like saying, well, we tossed you into this mess, and now you ought to dig yourselves out. Maybe this isn't what the author or the organization was trying to portray. I hope not. I guess I was looking for some more of his opinion, to dig a little deeper and ask the how and why questions, rather than simply what.
Usefulness:
There is a man called Paul Ray who wrote a book called "Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People are Changing the World." He writes that in reality there are literally millions of people who are socially aware, and creatively working to change and reshape the world--but hardly anyone know each other. I thought the chapter I read was useful and interesting for two reasons. Not only was the author making an effort to connect people with movements happening across the country, but within each vignette he clearly shows that in almost every one, half the battle of the work they were doing was to create coalitions, connect people--to join together and have a strong base and a holistic approach.
This clearly connects to the reading form Ken Reardon who, very helpfully I thought, goes through step by step the process he's followed in participatory planning. (In order to have participation, we better be able to connect to one another!)
Just Sustainability: Theory and Practice
Each of the paradigms discussed in chapters 3 and 4 are very useful. The New Environmental Paradigm improves upon the old beliefs that the Earth has an unlimited supply of resources that we can use to fuel unlimited growth. Clearly, the NEP has clearly replaced that old paradigm and makes it clear that the Earth’s capacity to produce resources and absorb our wastes is very limited. However, this paradigm fails to capture the fact that society needs to take these limits into consideration while appropriately allocating resources, strengthening social capital and equity (as well as other aspects of healthy societies), and accounting for cultural diversity. The NEP, which the chapters prove are still dominant among the largest environmental organizations, puts wilderness, water, and other indirectly-connected elements of the Earth before people direct problems.
The Environmental Justice Paradigm, upheld by the environmental justice movement, puts people first by emphasizing equity and access. Long marginalized by the dominant environmental movement, the EJ movement makes it clear that sustainability cannot be achieved without widespread equity, access, and recognition of and respect for cultural diversity. On the other hand, Agyeman (book author) proposes that the Just Sustainability Paradigm links these two working paradigms by linking the essential components, such as ecological footprint and debt, equity, access, and empowerment of traditionally marginalized communities.
This discussion proves to be applicable to most of the major societal problems we face today. While Agyeman shows specific community examples of how the JSP is applied, there are examples of where its application is the only viable solution. Global warming is one such case. The developed world is clearly responsible for more than 60% of all the greenhouse gases that society has placed in the atmosphere. As a result, this part of the world owes the rest of the world (which a larger population) because it developed with the causes of global warming. In the international climate debate, China and other developing countries always correctly claim that they should not pay the burden of the emission reductions because their contribution has been minimal. On the other hand, some developing nations (notably the United States) claim that they will not commit to reducing emissions without China and other developing countries committing as well. Clearly, everybody has a lot to lose from inaction. Neither China nor the Unites States have anything to gain from not doing anything. In fact, they have a lot to lose.
Nobody talks about raising funds in the developed world to reduce emissions in the developing world in addition to tough emission reductions in the developed world. If China and India are to shut down all their coal-burning power plants, they will need to be compensated for the lost value of those. No international treaty that takes this kind of equity consideration into account will solve global warming. In this case, the JSP is very applicable.
The Environmental Justice Paradigm, upheld by the environmental justice movement, puts people first by emphasizing equity and access. Long marginalized by the dominant environmental movement, the EJ movement makes it clear that sustainability cannot be achieved without widespread equity, access, and recognition of and respect for cultural diversity. On the other hand, Agyeman (book author) proposes that the Just Sustainability Paradigm links these two working paradigms by linking the essential components, such as ecological footprint and debt, equity, access, and empowerment of traditionally marginalized communities.
This discussion proves to be applicable to most of the major societal problems we face today. While Agyeman shows specific community examples of how the JSP is applied, there are examples of where its application is the only viable solution. Global warming is one such case. The developed world is clearly responsible for more than 60% of all the greenhouse gases that society has placed in the atmosphere. As a result, this part of the world owes the rest of the world (which a larger population) because it developed with the causes of global warming. In the international climate debate, China and other developing countries always correctly claim that they should not pay the burden of the emission reductions because their contribution has been minimal. On the other hand, some developing nations (notably the United States) claim that they will not commit to reducing emissions without China and other developing countries committing as well. Clearly, everybody has a lot to lose from inaction. Neither China nor the Unites States have anything to gain from not doing anything. In fact, they have a lot to lose.
Nobody talks about raising funds in the developed world to reduce emissions in the developing world in addition to tough emission reductions in the developed world. If China and India are to shut down all their coal-burning power plants, they will need to be compensated for the lost value of those. No international treaty that takes this kind of equity consideration into account will solve global warming. In this case, the JSP is very applicable.
Agyeman Chapter 1
Another piece to the puzzle in our holistic systems approach to sustainability is environmental justice. When discussing our goal to achieving a sustainable future, important social issues like race, class and poverty must be addressed if we are to be truly successful. Agyeman's book demonstrates how connected the two subjects are and why they must be connected when analyzing the issues and devising policies and plans.
I chose to blog about the books Introduction and Chapter 1 “Environmental Justice” because it begins to explore the important and growing relationship between Sustainability and Environmental Justice.
On page 5 of the Intro to the book, there is a quote from an employee of Greenpeace UK after she was asked if the employees of her organization represented a multicultural Britain. She said “No, that's not an issue for us. We are here to save the word.” The issue of inclusion as a required strategy for change did not even enter her head. This answer typifies a lot of environmental organizations who are made up of rich groups of people and tend to narrow their mission to one aspect of the environment.
“Just Sustainability” - to be successful in our pursuit of environmental sustainability, the goals of Environmental Justice groups can no longer be ignored. The author suggests that a new paradigm be created to combine together the goals of social justice and environmental stewardship to form a new effort called Just Sustainability with a new agenda. This would of course take a lot of cooperation amongst both groups and new agendas would have to be created. This is the challenge.
Key Concepts
Countries that have more dedication and concentration to social equity have more success in maintaining a healthy and sustainable environment.
The Environmental Justice movement should include all disadvantaged groups: poor, people of color, women, uneducated, because they suffer the effects of environmental pollution and problems disproportionately.
Environmental Justice principal states that all people have the right to be protected from environmental pollution and to live in and enjoy a clean and healthful environment....with an equal distribution of the environmental benefits.
In drawing up an action plan to achieving the goal of sustainable communities through the new paradigm of “Just Sustainability”, I felt overwhelmed. The issue becomes so much larger and much more complex. How can all these issues be addressed in a timely manner so that momentum for the cause does not get lost?
I chose to blog about the books Introduction and Chapter 1 “Environmental Justice” because it begins to explore the important and growing relationship between Sustainability and Environmental Justice.
On page 5 of the Intro to the book, there is a quote from an employee of Greenpeace UK after she was asked if the employees of her organization represented a multicultural Britain. She said “No, that's not an issue for us. We are here to save the word.” The issue of inclusion as a required strategy for change did not even enter her head. This answer typifies a lot of environmental organizations who are made up of rich groups of people and tend to narrow their mission to one aspect of the environment.
“Just Sustainability” - to be successful in our pursuit of environmental sustainability, the goals of Environmental Justice groups can no longer be ignored. The author suggests that a new paradigm be created to combine together the goals of social justice and environmental stewardship to form a new effort called Just Sustainability with a new agenda. This would of course take a lot of cooperation amongst both groups and new agendas would have to be created. This is the challenge.
Key Concepts
Countries that have more dedication and concentration to social equity have more success in maintaining a healthy and sustainable environment.
The Environmental Justice movement should include all disadvantaged groups: poor, people of color, women, uneducated, because they suffer the effects of environmental pollution and problems disproportionately.
Environmental Justice principal states that all people have the right to be protected from environmental pollution and to live in and enjoy a clean and healthful environment....with an equal distribution of the environmental benefits.
In drawing up an action plan to achieving the goal of sustainable communities through the new paradigm of “Just Sustainability”, I felt overwhelmed. The issue becomes so much larger and much more complex. How can all these issues be addressed in a timely manner so that momentum for the cause does not get lost?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)