As concerns about the environment have exponentially increased, more and more people have advocated against plastic water bottles. Plastic water bottles create large amounts of unnecessary waste, even when recycled (which often does not occur). Furthermore, despite being marketed as the cleaner, fresher, more luxurious alternative to tap water, there is little proof that the water is of a higher quality. In fact, there are fewer regulations on bottled water manufacturers than on the water that comes from your sink. Advocates often cite these arguments when attempting to curb bottled water consumption. However, many do not realize that, in addition to widespread ecological and health concerns, bottled water also contributes actively to environmental injustice, both here and abroad.

First, bottled water manufacturers make their profit through the exploitation of depressed rural communities. Companies like Nestlé broker unfair contracts with small, economically suffering towns, often in areas with minimal water regulations. They promise new jobs and improved infrastructure in exchange for massive tax breaks and sometimes exclusive rights to the area’s springs and aquifers, from which they pump hundreds of thousands of gallons a day. For the resources they drain, the manufacturers might pay as little as 0.000087 cents per gallon (this was the proposed contract for a bottling plant in McCloud, California). To put that in perspective, on average tap water costs a household 0.0015 cents per gallon. Once the water is bottled, the manufacturers sell at nearly 10,000 times the original value, at 10 dollars per gallon.

These contracts also often exempt manufacturers from any legal responsibility for the environmental consequences of their bottling plant, of which there are many. Using water for sustainable agriculture and other regional uses is distinct from bottling in that the water stays within the regional water cycle, which means that the springs and aquifers from which they extract will eventually be replenished through precipitation and infiltration. However, bottling plants remove water from cycle completely, sometimes shipping it halfway across the world. Furthermore, it extracts water from its source at rates that will not allow the water supply to naturally replenish itself. This can lead to a few serious issues for the region. First, it can cause water scarcity, which could severely depress the region’s agriculture production and also limit water resources for personal use. Second, draining springs can severely damage the region’s ecology, threatening species that rely on those resources. Finally, emptying of aquifers (groundwater) can literally depress the topography of the region, because the above Earth loses support, and the ground sinks through a process called subsidence. This can seriously damage above-ground structures. Because of carefully created contracts, bottling manufacturers are not responsible for any of these consequences, and because their main concern is profit, they have no stake in the region’s sustainability.  

The jobs that manufacturers promise the community are just as unsustainable. Once the region is drained of its water resources, all jobs opportunities will disappear. Ironically, many of the communities that manufacturers target are located in the northwest and the rustbelt, which became economically depressed because they relied on industries that vacated when resources depleted. One resident from Michigan raised the concern of once again relying on a fickle industry: “God knows that people need jobs in this area….but one has to look at the bigger picture and think about sustainable jobs….Back in 1890 to 1920 the timber industry came to Michigan and wiped out this state. I am sure there were plenty of jobs then. They said there was 500 years of timber, and in less than 50 years it was gone. Is that what we want to see again?”

As far as infrastructure, bottled water has actually encouraged its decline. America’s water infrastructure includes structures like dams, aqueducts, and underground pipes, as well as facilities like treatment plants and sewage systems. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, much of this infrastructure was built in the mid 20th century, and its lifespan is quickly coming to an end. This aging infrastructure has caused the water supply of entire cities to be contaminated, most famously occurring in Flint, Michigan. As communities rapidly lose faith in the safety of tap water, they have begun relying on bottled water instead. As an unintended consequence of this reliance, the pressure to update public water infrastructure has significantly decreased and minimal investment has been made in improving these systems, creating a vicious cycle wherein bottled water manufacturers are the only beneficiaries. In fact, they actively profit off of tragedies like Flint.

Days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, in a live TV fundraiser for victims of the disaster, Kanye West infamously went off script, saying “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” To many, this moment serves as a testament to the rapper’s “large personality” – at many other high profile events, he has delivered no-filter, controversial, and sometimes incoherent rants (political and otherwise). West’s statement was inflammatory, and in some ways unfair. George Bush was not entirely to blame for the neglect of poor, black residents of New Orleans. However, George Bush was the face of America, and America institutions – FEMA, the military, the media  – ignored their plight and misrepresented their struggle. John Barry, an author who has written about the politicization of natural disasters, said:

“I believe that a society in crisis reveals its true nature. And right now this hurricane has sort of ripped away some of the covering fabric and exposed to plain view some of the problems that American society has.”

‘Those problems’ being racism and classism. So West was, perhaps ineloquently, speaking truth to power, and his words sparked an important debate about the racial politics of Hurricane Katrina.

How did this hurricane exacerbate racial inequality? I have identified three key factors: evacuation, media coverage, and aid.

As I have talked about in previous blogs, marginalized communities are the most vulnerable to natural disasters because they often do not have the means to evacuate. Those left behind in New Orleans when the levees broke were primarily poor people of color. They may not have had access to a car and/or cannot cover the cost of transportation. If they could leave, many had nowhere to go — no extended family to stay with, and no money to rent a hotel room. Even if they wanted to leave, even if they needed to leave in order to survive, many had no choice but to stay.

Secondly, the media covered those who remained with little tact or integrity. Most “news” was rumor-driven, racially-charged fear mongering; post-disaster New Orleans was described (inaccurately) as a violent, crime-filled landscape. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin claimed that inside the Superdome where many victims found refuge, “hundreds of armed gang members killing and raping people” and that they were in an “almost animalistic state.” Political organizer Randall Robinson said that “thousands of blacks in New Orleans … have begun eating corpses to survive.” CNN’s Chris Lawrence announced that “There have literally been groups of young men roaming the city, shooting at people.” That is “literally” a complete lie. During the week of Hurricane Katrina, four murders occurred, no more than any other average week in the city. These reports may have drawn good ratings, but they had serious consequences. For one, it dehumanized those in need, painting them as menaces, not victims. As West himself said, earlier in the broadcast: “I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they are looting.” This, in turn, prevented the arrival of aid, because many rescuers worried that a military and police presence was necessary.

This brings me to my final point. It took days and weeks for aid to arrive in the city, leaving thousands without food, water, and medical attention. One New Orleans native, Donna Brazile, attested that “we thought the government would come in and help us. I mean, what has scared the living Jesus out of everybody is that they let us suffer. They let us die.” The slow arrival of aid partially because of concerns for safety, but many point to a more insidious reason: the poor, black victims of the disaster were simply not a priority. Clemson University Professor Abel Bartley pointed out that “there’s definitely a racial component. You would not expect to see white Americans spend four days without food or water with the press covering it every day and every minute and there be no response from the federal government.” Bartley is not alone in these sentiments. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Two-thirds of African Americans believe the federal government would have acted more quickly to help the storm’s victims if the people left behind had been white.

This might seem hard to believe because it is a truly horrifying accusation. But after everything I have learned writing this blog, it doesn’t seem far from the truth. It is easy to mock West’s comments, but when I really examine what he is trying to say, I can see that he is coming from a place of deep hurt, frustration, and helplessness. I’m on Kanye’s side – this time.

In my last post, I looked at environmental racism and classism through the specific example of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. However, Flint is not a unique case, in fact, it is indicative of the larger problems at work. Poor communities of color in America are especially vulnerable to water and air pollution — and not by accident. This week, I will present some key statistics everyone should know that demonstrate the national scale of this issue, and how it has been institutionalized in our society.

 

1. There is strategic, disproportionate exposure to facilities that release toxins.

According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan, “on average, people of color comprise 56% of the population living in neighborhoods with TRI facilities.” TRI facilities are facilities on the Toxic Release Inventory. They can include hazardous waste sites and polluting industrial facilities, both of which can be dangers towards public health. This not at all by accident — these poorer communities are intentionally targeted as hosts for facilities that emit dangerous toxins and pollutants. Often, weak zoning laws and low property values make these communities the ideal locations for these facilities. These areas also tend to lack a culture of “NIMBY-ism” (NIMBY is an acronym standing for Not In My BackYard; it refers to local advocacy against proposed development which is considered harmful or disruptive). This lack isn’t because these communities don’t care, but because they lack the resources and political clout to combat the large companies which wish to develop.

 

2. Children of Color are more vulnerable to lead poisoning.

According to a 2011 study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “11.2 percent of African American children and 4.0 percent of Mexican-American children are poisoned by lead, compared with 2.3 percent of white children.” As I learned when writing my last blog post, lead poisoning has serious health consequences, from severe brain damage to developmental and emotional disorders, to lifelong chronic pain. These health issues not only can ruin the life of a child but place significant stress on the family, not only emotionally but financially. The cost of medication and treatment could be very high and without good health insurance that family could end up with serious debt. This creates a vicious cycle — a family in debt cannot afford to move to a safer, cleaner home, where their children would be less vulnerable to lead poisoning.

 

3. Water contamination is significantly more common in poorer, low-income communities.

Despite the national outrage and shock regarding the Flint water crisis, there are communities all across the nation that do not have access to safe drinking water.  In rural communities and migrant farmworker communities, residents are forced to drink discolored, contaminated water that could cause a myriad of health effects — especially in young children. In the Navajo nation, indigenous people have been suffering for years due to a water supply tainted by uranium mining in the 1950s. In cases like this, often the government does not intervene as it was forced to in Flint, and citizens can’t afford to subsist off of expensive bottled water. Again, the resulting health effects can cripple both the community and the families with it.

 

What I find most shocking about these facts is that many of them have clear solutions. We can provide aid in emergencies while altering the institutions (like gentrification, healthcare, environmental regulations) that allowed these problems to occur in the first place. Of course, these things take time, but right now we aren’t doing anything. In fact, we are moving backward. In 2017, President Trump proposed removing the office within the EPA that addresses issues of environmental justice. As the 2020 election comes closer, keep an eye on which campaigns care about environmental justice, because it is crucial that we begin to elect people who care about these issues and will begin to address them with the urgency they deserve.

In April of 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan temporarily switched its water supply from Lake Huron to Flint river in order to save money while the city transitioned into a new system. However, the water wasn’t treated and corroded the pipes it traveled through, leaching led into flint’s water supply,

Water was discolored, foamy, and foul smelling. But despite many complaints from the residents of Flint, the government insisted the water was safe to drink. They ignored the problem for almost two years, despite the fact that some houses received water so contaminated it could be considered hazardous waste. The city placed chlorine the water supply and instructed residents to boil water before consuming it. However, these practices can actually increase levels of lead.

This was not because the government was unaware of the dangerous water quality — reports were fabricated and citizens were lied to in order to cover up the crisis. An employee at the Environmental Protection Agency leaked reports of high lead levels, but the city blamed the household plumbing. It was not until Marc Edwards, a professor of environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, led an investigation into Flint’s water supply that the city admitted there was a problem. Finally, in Fall of 2015, the Michigan government declared a state of emergency and began bringing bottled water to Flint residents. But the damage had already been done. More than a dozen people died, many became sick and experienced other adverse reactions to the contaminated water.  Many young children and babies exposed to the water are already exhibiting cognitive, developmental, and physical impairment s that will impact them for the rest of their lives.

Why is this an Environmental Justice issue? Based on census data, Flint, Michigan is the most impoverished city in America, suffering from the same economic turmoil as its large, neighboring city, Detroit. And Flint’s poverty levels have only been exacerbated by the water crisis. Their plight has largely been ignored because they are a city of lower-class Americans and because the city is populated mostly by African-Americans. If Flint, Michigan was a white, affluent community, this issue would have been addressed 2014 when complaints were first made. In fact, chances are compromises on water quality would never have been made. The government was willing to put this group of citizens in harm’s way to save money, but they were only willing to do this because their lives and safety have been devalued by institutional racism and classism. And despite the fact that Flint residents will feel the impacts of the water crisis for decades to come, aid for the city has halted only two years into the state of emergency.

This past year, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder stopped sending bottled water to Flint. Lead levels have significantly decreased, but no amount of lead exposure is safe, and in many parts of the city, the dangerous pipes have yet to be replaced. Citizens still don’t feel safe drinking the water, but they are forced to pay expensive bills for water they don’t use, on top of the expensive bottled water they now need to buy in order to survive. On top of all this, many have lost jobs or have expensive hospital bills due to the health impacts of the water. The fact that Snyder abandoned Flint while they still reeled from the crisis is clear negligence and complete apathy for the pain that the community has experienced. Flint deserves far more than an apology and a few years of mediocre aid. They deserve significant reparations for the damage done to their health, their safety, and their quality of life.

For more information, check out these informative videos on the origins of the Flint water crisis.

If you want to help the residents of Flint, check out this article from HuffPost about all the best ways to offer aid.

Note: As a society, we have reached a point where we can no longer debate the basic facts of climate change — it’s happening. Arguments denying that global warming exists, and denying the hand humans played in this crisis are based in misinformation and fallacy. I cannot address these arguments in this blog.

As the National Climate Assessments released in the fall of last year demonstrated, the consequences of climate change are already present, and will continue to grow if we do not take immediate action. Even when knowing this, it can be difficult to fully comprehend the urgency of this issue. It seems intangible to the many of us who have not yet been directly impacted. But as the Climate Assessment points out: “Climate change…exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States.” The first to be impacted by climate change are those who are the least privileged or marginalized: traditionally minority, low-income, and tribal communities. So, while you and I may not feel the impact right now, marginalized people do. They bear a disproportionate burden of the changing climate and will continue to do so as conditions worsen.

These claims, at first, may seem untrue. The earth has no biased against the poor or people of color. If anything would act a great equalizer, it would be the changing climate. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Dr. Robert Bullard, sometimes referred to as the ‘father of environmental justice,’ says both “conscious design [and] institutional neglect” create these burdens on marginalized communities. The earth may not be biased against these groups, but the governments and institutions that create environmental policy and law certainly are. For instance, a disproportionate amount of water pollution, air pollution, and hazardous waste sites are found in the poorer residential areas of the United States. Often these areas, both urban and rural, are mostly populated by black and Hispanic communities. Sometimes, this is through ‘conscious design’ — companies dump waste and pollute in areas with lower property values or where citizens have less power to advocate for their communities. And often the government prioritizes the health, safety, and cleanliness of wealthy, white communities, leading to ‘institutional neglect’ of the less privileged. Another example, relevant especially in our country, is the historical and continued theft, destruction, and commodification of lands belonging to Native Americans. Recently, we witnessed this with the protests at Standing Rock over the DACA pipeline, which could have polluted their water supply and devastated their community.

And not only are communities like Flint, Michigan and the Sioux Tribe unfairly burdened by the changing climate, but they also do not have the resources to be resilient in the face of these issues. If air and water are polluted, many poorer communities lack adequate healthcare to deal with the risks of living in a contaminated environment. If natural disasters and rising water levels destroy homes and displace families, many do not have the funds to repair or move.

All of this is cyclical because these marginalized groups are not adequately represented in government and other powerful institutions, and therefore have no access to environmental law and policy making. Their situations will continue to be ignored, or worse, exacerbated, until people of color, of lower income, and of indigenous origin have equal access to the organizations combating climate change.

We often think of climate change through the lens of our own experiences, partially because the environmental movement historically has been dominated by white and upper-class groups. But everyone’s lives will be impacted differently, some much more than others. If we ignore this, we do not see the full picture of this issue. Therefore, environmental justice, which studies the intersections of oppression and the environment, is a perfect lens to examine the urgency of climate change, how it already impacts our community, and how we should approach solutions.