Why Environmental Justice Matters
Recently I attended a transdisciplinary international conference on environmental justice at Franklin University Switzerland in Lugano. It featured a potpourri of themes that might have led to nothing but confusion. But rather than leaving me dazed, these crosscurrents of thinking helped to clarify several questions that have bothered me for some time.
The conference was titled “Environmental Justice, ‘Collapse’ and the Question of Evidence”. [1] Now you may ask, what does environmental justice have to do with collapse? Let me explain.
The gathering at Franklin University combined old hope with new pessimism. The old hope is that of the environmental justice movement, namely that re-framing environmental problems as an issue of social justice would mobilize people to act against environmental destruction. In 2000, Hollywood turned such thinking into a film: Erin Brockovich (see [2] for a short description of the story). Let’s call this the romance of environmental justice.
The new pessimism, that has since the making of that film added a new twist to the environmental justice romance, is the acknowledgement that just knowing about environmental injustice does not automatically result in any sort of fix. And, even more pressing, that we might within this century be confronted with such far-reaching and serious environmental problems that not only a few “marginalized” people, but many of us will be greatly affected [3]; hence the word ‘collapse’ in the title.
Thus, the overall question of the conference was: can framing threatening global environmental problems as issues of social justice help to mobilize us to take action before it is too late? I have no direct answers, but here are my three lessons learnt from the conference.
Doctor, I know that I’m sick
We don’t live in an Erin Brockovich world anymore. Things are getting more complicated. Humanity, and in particular the rich nations of the North, have been put on trial by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); there is no doubt that we are guilty of risking imminent dangerous climate change, but despite this knowledge not much happens. Facts about what went wrong, who is responsible, and who suffers are not enough.
So my first lesson learnt is this: the priority is no longer a simple diagnosis of problems; instead we need evidence of how our situation could be improved. And we need the evidence in forms that enable collective action. Indeed, individuals and groups involved in the case studies discussed at the conference were rarely motivated to do something by scientific statistics, but rather by real examples of actual positive change in their surroundings.
It’s family, friends and neighbours, stupid!
My second take-home lesson is related to the question of how to turn global environmental problems into social issues. It is the kind of question that becomes increasingly dominant in international environmental policies such as climate negotiations. Many hope that universal principles such as human rights will ensure that we deal with environmental problems and resulting injustice. If only there were no economic constraints and enough political will. There is certainly a grain of truth in this, but the psychological and social literature on climate action (or inaction) points increasingly to another aspect: people care more about their family, friends and neighbours than they do about theoretical principles. And if your family, friends and neighbours depend on a job in the oil or coal industry, you would feel like a social rascal if you called, say, for strict anti-oil regulations.
The day the Lugano conference ended, the weekend magazine of the Swiss newspaper, Tages-Anzeiger, published a reportage by comics author Joe Sacco about tar sand extraction in Alberta, Canada. [4] The author visits the region, sees the destruction of the landscape, thinks about our unhealthy dependence on non-renewable resources, but also portrays the multicultural and vibrant life of the towns that depend on tar sand extraction. He observes family fathers who do the right thing by bringing home the money from their tar sand extraction jobs that enables their kids to have a joyful life. Change will only happen when doing the right thing for the environment also means being fair to family, friends and neighbours.
The quiet elites
This brings me to my third insight: the question of environmental injustice is in particular about why those who are rich and in power don’t act. The most disturbing new concept that I encountered at the Lugano conference was “eco-gentrification”: rich neighbourhoods, cities, and nations build their local sustainable ways of living – green parks full of beautiful and rare species, sustainable food stores, and gentle bike trails – while surrounding poor neighbourhoods and world regions quietly degenerate. It is what happens in cities around the world, and you could say on a country-scale in Switzerland: a beautiful, safe mountain retreat for a global elite? And it reminds me of what the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood envisioned in her frightening MaddAddam post-collapse science fiction trilogy [5]: the rich live in gated communities surrounded by areas of environmental degradation and social unrest. Hopefully her vision will remain fiction. But, while we still live in a pre-collapse world, eco-gentrification might actually accelerate the path towards such a scenario: those in power will feel save in their fluffy sustainable fantasy worlds in which the urgent call to action is muffled at best. [6]
68 once again at 68
So, how can we turn global environmental problems into an issue of social justice within affluent countries? Here is one thought: the generation that is at present retiring in these countries is the one generation that will, over their lifetimes, have profited from environmental exploitation and extraction of non-renewable resources and associated rapid economic growth like no other generation before or after. It is a generation that used their historically unique opportunity well when they were young: in the 1960s they fought for justice, freedom and peace, and they were successful. This is also the generation – at least in Switzerland – that (on average) moved from the progressive left to the conservative right and is now mostly concerned with protecting their assets and privileges rather than solving the underlying problems. At the same time, and maybe most importantly, it is the generation of grandparents that spends much more time than their parents and grandparents with their grandchildren.
My message to the generation of the economic wonder years: don’t forget that you were the lucky generation. Your grandchildren playing with you on the playground will face a tough life. We need you once again to show us that social change that seems impossible can happen. No other age group in our society has the time, freedom, security and resources to speak up for an alternative, sustainable society. Do you remember the Beatles singing “When I get older, losing my hair…”. The time has come, and it is the time for another 1968, now at the age of 68. To paraphrase John Lennon and Yoko Ono: “Give your grandchildren a chance”.
Jim Morrison is dead, Bob Dylan is rich, what about you?
Further information
[1] The external page conference brought together twenty-five artists, filmmakers, philosophers, cultural, social and natural scientists who debated a wide range of topics ranging from philosophical and sociological concepts of justice, to representations of justice and environmental collapse in comics, shipwrecks, post-war traumas, hurricane Katrina, and conceptions of environmental citizenship and race in the United States.
[2] The story goes as follows: external page Erin Brockovich, played by Julia Roberts, an unemployed single mother of three children, uncovers evidence that a big company had polluted groundwater resulting in a sharp increase of cancer. Eventually she and the affected population win a lawsuit against the corporation. The quintessence: once you have gathered the evidence to prove that an environmental polluter has treated someone unfairly, the victim will speak up and the state will rectify the injustice and thereby solve an environmental problem.
[3] On the risk of collapse, see this blog post
[4] Das Magazin N° 38 (19. September 2015), pages 1-11
[6] Rob Nixon’s “Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor” is a key recent book on environmental justice (Harvard University Press, 2011). In the introduction he argues that an underlying rationale of “global managerial reasoning” to “offload rich-nation toxins onto the world’s poorest continent [Africa]” is to “help ease the growing pressure from rich-nation environmentalists”. In Africa, waste is out of sight of the citizens of rich nations that might protest against the same waste at home.