[ 李恒譯 ]——(2007-3-27) / 已閱19108次
GREEN JUSTICE: A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
李恒翻譯
NICOLE C. KIBERT
I. INTRODUCTION
Environmental injustice is a phenomena that occurs in the United States and around the world in which people of color and of lower socio-economic status are disproportionately affected by pollution, the sitting of toxic waste dumps, and other Locally Unwanted Land Uses (LULUs). This paper addresses the historical and philosophical backgrounds of environmental injustice and reviews potential legal, practical, and philosophical solutions for achieving environmental justice. Initially “environmental justice” was referred to as” environmental racism” because of the disproportionate impact on people of color; however, it is now clear that environmental health risks are foisted predominately on lower income groups of all racial and ethnic groups. In order to be inclusive, as well as to avoid the extra baggage that comes with calling an act “racist,” practitioners almost exclusively use the term “environmental justice” rather than” environmental racism.” Though a discussion regarding nomenclature may seem superfluous, in the context of a discussion of the origins and strategies for achieving environmental justice its actually integral. The way that a society assigns a connotation onto of a word’s denotation has an enormous impact on how a phrase will be interpreted by the general public. Use of the term” environmental justice” is a step in bringing the issue of constitutional right to live in a healthy environment for all people– not just to those who are interested in racial equality.
II. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines” environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group - including racial, ethnic rococo economic groups - should bear a disproportionate share of the
Negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, cal, and tribal programs. Many studies have shown that, over the past 20 years, minorities - African Americans in particular - are more likely to live-in close proximity to an environmental hazard. Unfortunately, there are many examples to choose from to illustrate this observation. Colin Crawford, in his book, “Uproar at Dancing Creek,” discusses in great detail the efforts of an entrepreneur to site a new hazardous waste facility in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Conspicuously, when Crawford compared Noxubee County with other counties in Mississippi, he found that it had the highest annual average unemployment rate from 1970 –1993, a high rate of functional illiteracy with only 51.34 percent of its adult population having high school diplomas, and by far the lowest per captaincies in the region. In addition, of the 12,500 people who lived in Noxubee County, 70 percent were African American and poor. Crawford found that sitting of a hazardous waste dump in this poor, largely Minority County was not an accident, but a calculated campaign. It pitted the poor African American majority and whites against the minority, but politically powerful, white population in false promise of economic development that would bring new jobs. As Crawford stated, “people who most often bear the dangers of living near the excreta of our acquisitive industrial society are thievery same ones who have been most abused throughout our history.”
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT
The official history of environmental justice is approximately 20years old. In 1979, in Houston, Texas, residents formed community action group to block a hazardous waste facility from being built in their middle-class African American Neighborhood. In 1982, environmental justice made news in Warren, North Carolina when a protest regarding the sitting of a PCB landfill in a predominantly African American area resulted in over 500 arrests. The Warren protest was followed by a report by the General Accounting Office which found that three out of four landfills in EPA Region 4 were located in predominately African American areas, even though those areas comprised only 20 percent of the region’s population. An additional report addressing environmental injustice was published in 1987 by the United Church of Christ entitled ‘Toxic Waste and Race in the United States’ which “found that the racial composition of a community – more than socioeconomic status – was the most significant determinant of whether or not a commercial hazardous waste facility would be located there.” The People of Color Environmental Leadership Seminar was held in 1991 in Washington D.C. and was attended by 650 people from around the world. The attendees adopted a set of “principles for environmental justice” that were circulated at the Earth Summit in1992 in Rio de Janeiro. In 1992, the EPA established an Environmental Equity Workgroup. On recommendation from this group, the EPA started an Office of Environmental Justice. In1994, the Center for Policy Alternatives took another look at the United Church of Christ 1987 report. They found that minorities are 47 percent more likely than others to live near hazardous waste facilities. The latest initiative in environmental justice occurred in 1994when President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12898 which ordered federal agencies to comply with Title VI for all federally funded programs and activities that affect human health or the environment. Title VI states, “No person in the United States, shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Though overdue by environmental justice activist standards, President Clinton’s recognition of environmental justice increased government accountability, for which they were arguably already responsible, but now there was a clearly articulated standard.
IV .ORIGINS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
The degradation of the environment is fundamentally tied to the disproportionate burden placed on the disenfranchised members of our society: minorities, women, and the poor. Several environmental philosophies have emerged – among them Deep Ecology, Ecological Feminism, and Bioregionalism – to attempt to explain how it became acceptable to exploit the environment while endangering the health of certain groups of humans in the name of economic development. In this section, a brief review of these ecological philosophies, as well as an examination of industrial risk analysis, are presented as possible explanations for the origins of environmental injustice. Industries and governments use risk analysis to determine whether to allow projects to move forward. “When landscapes and ecosystems are regarded as commodities, then members of an ecosystem, including human beings, are treated as ‘isolated and extractable units.’” Industrial risk analysis determines how much exposure is acceptable in terms of “one-in-a-hundred-thousand or one-in-a-million additional ‘acceptable’ deaths for toxic chemical exposure.” While neutral on its face, risk analysis serves as a means for justifying disproportionate treatment for some” acceptable” percentage of an exposed human population. However, this method is fundamentally flawed because there is no set standard for which tests to use in determining risks. Therefore, extremely different conclusions can be reached about the same risk depending on which tests are used. When a potentially hazardous project is being proposed, if it is a well-organized and economically well-off community, the community members will be able to come up with their own risk analysis numbers showing an unacceptable risk resulting in permit denial. However, if the negative impact is going to fall mainly on people who are not able to fight back, then the project will most likely go ahead with a risk analysis showing unacceptable risk by the permitting agency. There are alternatives to risk analysis that will be discussed infra, in the solutions for achieving environmental justice section. Deep Ecology is an ecological philosophy that places humans within the context of ecological systems rather than outside or central to the system. In addition, humans are considered to be equal, not superior or more important, in value to other components of an ecological system. It is a science based philosophy in that it is based on the connections of an ecological system, but it is also a true philosophy in that it encourages humans to delve “deep” into their fundamental values. Arne Ness, considered the father of Deep Ecology, has developed a set of seven tenets which, when considered together, would form a type of ecological consciousness. The fourth tenet focuses on anti-class posture. “Diversity of human ways of life is, in part, due to (intended or unintended) exploitation and suppression on the part of certain groups. The exploiter lives differently from the exploited, but both are adversely affected in their potentialities of self-realization.” Naess and supporters of Deep Ecology believe that if we could focus on the impact of all of our actions on everything in the system (and importantly place humans within the system) that we could achieve social justice and live in harmony with the environment. Another one of the tenets is to fight against pollution and resource depletion. Taken together, these two tenets describe environmental justice: to treat all people equally while reducing pollution. Naess believes that when one of the tenets is considered independently problems will arise, and either the environment or a class of people will suffer. Therefore, Deep Ecology requires inclusive, open thinking rather than the current industrial risk analysis focus that we now predominately use when determining whether to allow a polluting industry to develop or continue, or when determining where they can dump their hazardous waste.
There is a small but growing section in the ecological philosophy movement called “bioregionalism” that envisions a redrawing of political boundaries to follow the contours of local ecosystems.” The globalization of modern culture has contributed to the spread of institutional values which threaten cultural and ecological diversity.” This movement believes that it will be necessary for people to begin functioning on a regional level in order to preserve the environment and protect ourselves from the affects of polluting industry Bioregionalisms call this ‘living in place.’ Bioregionalism means that “you are aware of the ecology, economy, and culture of the place where you live, and are committed to making choices that them.” More radically they believe that people need to live in a sustainable way that involves living in regional units that provide for its inhabitants while co-existing with the natural ecosystem. Environmental injustice occurs because the emphasis for development is often not based on local needs or the preservation of cultural or biological diversity. When the emphasis is on the industrial needs, rather than cultural or ecological needs, environmental injustice is destined to occur some eco feminist theorists have stated that the feminization of nature is what started the ability to degrade the earth and people without regret. Popular environmental slogans state “love your mother.” However, equating the earth and nature to a woman can have negative consequences in a patriarchal society that does not respect women. A recent Earth First! Slogan illustrates the problem: “The Earth is a witch, and the men still burn her.” As an environmental movement we definitely do not want to encourage the idea that mother earth will absorb everything we lob at her without asking anything in return. “Mother in patriarchal cultures she who provides all of our sustenance and who makes disappear all of our waste products, she who satisfies all of our wants and needs endlessly without any cost to us. Mother is she who loves sand will take care of us no matter what.”
英文原文出自以下網站：
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_1/kibert.pdf
綠色正義：環境非正義的全面剖析（譯文）
NICOLE C. KIBERT
I. 介紹
環境的非正義經常發生在美國和世界其他地區的低收入人群之中,由于他們經濟地位不高，所以更容易受到環境污染的影響，如有毒廢料在這種群體中的傳播以及對當地不需要的土地的利用(LULUs)等等，這是一種環境不公正是現象。本文從歷史和哲學的角度來探討環境不公道的現象和回顧潛在的法律, 實踐，且從哲學的角度來解答如何達到環境正義。 最初的"環境正義" 是首先在"環境種族主義"提到的。它是對不同顏色的人的不均衡的沖擊與歧視。但是, 現在的情況是確切的環境健康風險被蒙騙在更低的收入種族和族群中。為了將"環境種族主義"包含在“環境正義"之中，并且避免叫此行動為"種族主義者的額外行李"實踐者幾乎完全規定" 環境正義"相當于環境種族主義"雖然一次討論關于命名原則也許似乎多余, 但就討論的狀況起源和戰略上來講，為達到環境正義，它實際上不可缺少。社會分配方式對公眾關于一個詞組的理解有著極大的影響。"環境正義" 是指依據憲法給予的權利，所有人民都應該居住在一個健康的環境之中，而不僅僅局限于種族平等。
II. 什么是環境正義?
美國環境保護代辦處對"環境正義" 下的定義是：所有人民應當受到公平的對待和有效地介入到環境發展, 環境法章程和政策的實施和執行之中。不管種族, 顏色, 原國籍, 或收入。 公平對待意味沒有小組，包括沒有種族, 沒有種族洛可可式的經濟集團。對環境污染的責任，大家應該負擔一個不均衡的份額。消極環境后果起因于工業，市政, 商業操作或施行的聯邦、部族節目。許多研究顯示：在過去20 年中, 少數非裔美國人特別容易遭受到由于環境污染而引起的危害。不幸地, 有許多例子可供選擇來說明這種情況。Colin Crawford, 在他的書里, "跳舞小河的騷亂"中談論到了那些了不起的企業家在努力選址的過程中將一種新的有害廢料設施安排在密西西比的Noxubee 縣。顯眼地, 當Crawford 將Noxubee 縣與其它縣比較時, 他發現在1970 年-1993年間，它有最高的年平均失業率, 功能文盲也以一種高速率在增長。在其最低的captaincies區域，成人人口的百分之51.34 只有中學畢業證書。 另外, 12,500 人民居住在Noxubee 縣, 百分之70 是非裔美國人和貧寒。 Crawford 發現了有害廢料轉儲在這個貧寒縣不主要是意外事故, 而是一次故意的競選。少數非裔美國人，多數是白人, 在政治上強有力, 白人說這樣會帶來新工作機會，經濟發展回更快的假的諾言。 如同Crawford 陳述, "誰經常忍受工業社會排泄物而在這種危險的環境之中生存的人往往是被歷史忽略的人。"
III. 環境正義運動的簡要歷史
環境正義的正式歷史起源于20多年前。1979 年,在休斯敦, 得克薩斯, 居民形成社區活動小組阻攔一種有害廢料設施被修造在他們的中產階級非裔美國人聚居地。1982 年, 最有新聞價值的關于環境正義的報道發生在北卡羅來納。當一個抗議關于PCB 垃圾填埋在非裔美國人地區的會議取得了完全成功。 Warren的抗議報告發現了會計辦公室的垃圾填埋在非裔美國人地區。雖然那些區域只有百分之20 住人。1987 年一個另外的報告演講環境的不公道被出版了。由基督教會授權的"有毒廢料和種族團結的教會"發現在團結的狀態的社區是沒有一種商業有害廢料設施不會在那里被找出的。1991 年"顏色環境領導研討會在華盛頓D.C.舉行， 并且有世界各地650 個人出席了該會議。到會者采取了被散布在地球山頂的在里約熱內盧的一套"環境正義"的原則。1992 年, EPA 建立了一個環境產權工作小組。由這個小組推薦, EPA 建立了環境正義辦公室。1994年, 政策制定中心看了看基督團結教會在1987的報告， 他們發現少數人種比其他人多百分之47 的可能居住在有害廢料設施附近。 最新的主動性環境正義發生在1994克林頓總統發布的行政命令中。第12898 文件下令聯邦政府機關遵照標題VI ，杜絕所有聯邦被資助的節目和活動影響人類健康或環境。標題VI 表明："沒有人將在美國的地面，受到種族, 顏色或原國籍的歧視從而被排除, 被否認而得不到好處,大家都有權根據任一節目或活動接受聯邦經濟援助。"根據環境正義活動家標準, 克林頓政府增加了政府責任, 為那些爭論已經負起了責任,現在有了一個清楚、明確的表達標準。
IV. 環境不公道的起源
環境的退化的負擔根本上被不均衡地安置在我們的社會的不同階層: 少數民族, 婦女, 和貧寒人口。從而涌現了環境哲學，在他們之中有深刻的生態主義, 生態學女權主義者都試圖解釋怎么使環境污染以經濟發展的名義危及特定人群健康的時候變得可接受。在這個部分, 對這些生態學哲學進行簡要的回顧, 并且對工業風險進行分析檢測, 提出了環境不公道的起源可能的解釋。產業和政府使用風險分析確定是否允許項目進行。"當風景和生態系統被認定為商品, 然后生態系的成員, 包括人, 被認為是被隔絕的和可取的單位。"工業風險分析確定是可接受的根據"。但是, 這個方法是根本上有缺陷的因為沒有測試使用在確定風險的集合標準。所以, 極端不同的結論可能是使測試與不測試達到大致同樣的風險。當一個潛在地危害項目被提議, 如果這是在一個組織完善和經濟上充裕的社區, 社區成員能產生他們自己的風險分析數字顯示一種不能接受的風險造從而否認許可證。但是, 如果負面地影響使得人們無力還擊, 該項目很可能在先前的風險分析顯示不能接受的情況下被允許。他們將有選擇性地對風險分析進行討論，來達到環境正義。本質的生態是安置人在生態學系統而不是在外部或中央之內的生態學哲學。另外, 人被認為是平等的, 沒有特權和貴賤, 按價值對一個生態學系統的其它組分。生態系統的其他價值是基于其哲學價值的，而哲學價值又是以生態系統本身為根本，并且他又是一個哲學理念，那就是鼓勵人們將這一本質作為其基礎價值。Arne Ness,深刻生態主義之父, 開發了一套七條原則，當組合在一起時, 會形成一種生態學意識。第四個原則焦點在反類姿勢。"人的生活方式變化, 一部分是由于(意欲的或不愿意的) 開發和鎮壓在某些小組而形成。開發與剝削不同, 但兩個均有害地影響了認識自我的潛在性。"深刻生態主義者Naess 和他的支持者相信如果我們能將所有的影響我們的一切行動在系統中集中起來。(重要地是安置人在系統之內) 那我們就能達到社會正義和居住與環境一致。另外一個原則則是與污染和資源怠盡做斗爭。將其結合起來, 這兩條原則就描述了環境正義: 相等地對待所有人民，努力減少環境污染。Naess 相信這兩個原則當中的一個獨立地出現時, 一部分環境或人類將遭受污染。所以, 深刻的生態要求包含的，開放的思維與價值觀比起我們經常使用的工業風險分析來確定是否允許污染產業出現或繼續,或確定何處他們能傾銷他們的有害廢料的方法要好得多。有一個影響小但正在增長的部分在生態學哲學中叫做" bioregionalism"的運動正在侵蝕著政治經濟系統。 "現代文化的全球化對文化的傳播和生態學價值的變化作出了貢獻。這運動相信, 對于人們而言將非常有必要開展一種機制來保存環境和保護自己免受污染產業影響。Bioregionalisms 認為這叫居住到位。 Bioregionalism 意味著 "您意識到生態, 經濟, 和您居住地方的文化, 并且承諾做出他們的選擇。"他們更加根本地相信,人們需要一種能夠與之相鄰的自然生態系相共生的一種能承受的方法。環境不公道的發生主要是因為為發展經濟經常不根據地方需要或文化或生物變化而開發。當著眼于工業需要, 而不是文化或生態學需要時, 環境不公道則像女權理論家闡明的那樣將貶低地球和人民的能力而沒有遺憾。普遍的環境口號陳述為"愛您的母親"。然而, 視同地球和自然像婦女一樣使我們忽略了一種消極的后果，那就是我們在一個家長式社會中而不尊敬婦女。最近地球首先 喊出一種口號: "地球是妓女, 男人仍在奸污她"。正如我們正在進行的環保運動一樣，大地母親將吸收一切我們拋投在她那里的東西并且沒有要求任何東西的回報。 "母親在家長式文化下提供所有我們的生計并且吸收我們的廢品, 她無限制地滿足所有我們的需要而不計我們任何的費用。不管我們是什么，大地母親都會像愛他的兒子一樣愛護我們。
李恒，東華大學法學專業畢業，法學學士。潛心研學環境法學多年，有多篇相關文章在各類法學雜志發表，希望結交致力于環保法律事業的朋友！
henleyroyal@126.com
