Environmental Justice - Initial Barriers To Minority Participation

Initial Barriers To Minority Participation

When environmentalism first became popular during the first half of the 20th century, the focus was wilderness protection and wildlife preservation. These goals reflected the interests of the movement’s initial supporters. The actions of many mainstream environmental organizations still reflect these early principles

Many low-income minorities felt isolated or even negatively impacted by the movement. Supporters of the early environmental movement excluded minorities and working class people from their organizations. They regarded inner-city areas as places of degradation and ignored the environmental problems prevalent there. In addition, the NIMBY movement has transferred locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) from middle-class neighborhoods to poor communities with large minority populations. Therefore, vulnerable communities with fewer political opportunities are more often exposed to hazardous waste and toxins. This has resulted in the PIBBY principle, or at least the PIMBY (Place-in-minorities'-backyard), as supported by the United Church of Christ's study in 1987.

As a result, some minorities have viewed the environmental movement as elitist. Environmental elitism manifested itself in three different forms:

1. Compositional – Environmentalists are from the middle and upper class.
2. Ideological – The reforms benefit the movement’s supporters but impose costs on nonparticipants.
3. Impact – The reforms have “regressive social impacts”. They disproportionately benefit environmentalists and harm underrepresented populations.

Supporters of economic growth have taken advantage of environmentalists’ neglect of minorities. They have convinced minority leaders looking to improve their communities that the economic benefits of industrial facility and the increase in the number of jobs are worth the health risks. In fact, both politicians and businesses have even threatened imminent job loss if communities do not accept hazardous industries and facilities. Although in many cases local residents do not actually receive these benefits, the argument is used to decrease resistance in the communities as well as avoid expenditures used to clean up pollutants and create safer workplace environments.