We’re talking about pollution and minorities and I have no doubts about the findings of the report in question. Its sinister and evil and anything else foul you might wish to call it as the people who are most affected by this have the least resources to deal with the resulting health problems. I recently viewed a PBS special on three Native American youths who were looking at their tribe, some stolen land as well as pollution. A startling revelation was that nearly 90+ percent of the country’s refineries are near or on Native American land. For the folks saying this isn’t racist I only ask how many treaties have we broken with the Native Americans. You know why, because we were always intentionally giving them land that we thought was worthless. When we found out there was something of value about the land, you got yet another broken treaty. Of import is the fact that there was a conscious decision that Native Americans not have valuable land, even if their previous land was in fact valuable. If they could consciously assign land that was intended to be valueless, then they could also intentionally say, ‘ah just a bunch of indians, go ahead and put the nuclear plant there.’

As with the Native Americans, those responsible for zoning apparently are aware enough of those potentially affected to consistently not zone wealthier neighborhoods for hazardous materials and instead zone areas near or within minority/poor communities. How could such patterns exist if there were not some conscious deliberation occurring? I believe that the only way to have true justice is to seek it on everyone’s behalf. If we had made more effort to see that Native Americans not be polluted, we all would have benefited. If we had worked more diligently to see that there be not even the appearance that was okay to pollute minorities of any race or creed, we all would have benefitted. The US bound itself to Capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t ask about good for environment or responsible stewardship or even public trust and welfare. There are so many pharmaceuticals in the water in Los Angeles, soon who’ll need a prescription? In that equation wealthier people have access to bottled water and other technologies. Still, with the states fighting over an ever decreasing water supply here in the west, it might not matter much eventually because no matter who they set out to target we will all be affected. 25 states have rocket fuel in the water and its in the food supply because its the same water for everyone, plants and livestock included. Everyone’s glaciers are melting and in the US food supply, produce today isn’t as nutritious as previous generations because the chemicals used to force the land to produce abundantly can’t fake vitamins and minerals that have been depleted and of course these are everyone’s vegetables. In the end it won’t matter if they set out to be racist or not, when you don’t protect everyone you don’t protect anyone. When its okay to have protected classes and intentionally not protect others or just not to the same extent, we are seeing that, as the Earth is telling us, no one is protected.

However, in areas where there is open space, the heavy polluters could move away from people, but then because the property value around them decreased, they attracted lower income folks who couldn’t afford to live in the nicer areas.

We can rationalize why some should suffer more than others, but at some point we should focus on meeting our needs without damaging the health of non-consumers and the environment.

Was reminded as well of the e-waste being shipped off to mainland China where villagers have no way to know what is poisoning them, and no one but the stray western reporter to let them know.

Can you imagine what’s being dumped in Africa??

Reductions since the 70s are even larger than the reductions since the 80s. And the report mentioned in the original post is on emissions of air pollution.

And the aggregate emissions of the six common pollutants and their precursors since the 70s are here.

http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/images/comparison70.jpg

-Full disclosure; I helped to make the linked graphic.

It does seem that most of those who’ve commented recognize that we do no live in “free market capitalism.” I think your final sentence about the question of “how much our society wants to round off the harsh edges of the free market” is framed well. It’s a matter of degree, when, where, how, etc., rather than whether we round off those harsh edges.

Just to raise one issue of my own, what about the incentives impact of such an inquisitorial approach to the activities of individual companies? If this sort of calculus were to rule, then most companies could quite rationally avoid investing in areas where minorities live altogether. I guess that’s an outcome which might suit those who believe that minority issues are the property of the collective, and only government can ever get involved in them while keeping its hands clean, but that reflects a set of assumptions which deserve to be argued rationally instead of just assumed.

Love your stuff, when it’s on topic. Yes, I know it’s your blog, but much of the readership you are interested in will not be interested in following you far down this path.

http://www.pbs.org/race/006_WhereRaceLives/006_01-unclesam.htm

Ultimately the problem though is that the pollution exists at all. While it certainly is unfair who is getting the short end of the stick, the fact that anyone gets the short end is the real problem.

It seems to me we play a sort of game with pollution where we try to move it, or trade it, or tax it or whatever. We do this all the while where solutions, albeit not free, exist to eliminate it. Instead of playing “whack-a-mole” with the pollution, maybe it’s time to just straight out regulate it?

Of course that not politically tenable, which of course is funny because it has popular support (in general it’s funny how much is not “politically tenable” despite overwhelming popular support – perhaps that says something about our system of government?).

Unfortunately even if we could solve it here, the pollution would probably be exported somewhere else where the system is weaker. In fact I would guess that’s part of why everything has a “Made in China” sticker stamped on it.

Which would lead to my final argument – it’s not really possible to have “free trade” with countries that are neither free, nor exercising reasonable standards in terms of environmental control or workers rights. “free trade” is just an illusion in those cases, because it isn’t a level playing field.

Of course the conservative answer to that is to bring us down to their level, rather than to insist they be brought up to ours. Pathetic.