Trending
Among all the other good things he stood for, Dr. Martin Luther King was an inadvertent environmentalist.
The 50th anniversary of his assassination was widely commemorated last month, and it is an interesting time to reflect upon his connection to the environmental justice movement in America.
The term "environmental justice" did not come into use for more than a decade after King's death, but many believe he laid the foundation for its principles in the '60s. To fully understand why, it's important to understand what the term has come to mean.
It has always been evident that poorer people, of all races and ethnic groups, lived in less pleasant, less affluent places. But it was not until the '80s that the relationship between poverty-stricken places and widespread environmental problems became well-documented and acknowledged.
A host of studies and media research began in the early '80s; one of the first and most notable was requested in 1982 by the United States House of Representative's Energy and Commerce Committee. The study found that more than a quarter of the people living near hazardous waste landfills had annual incomes below the national poverty level.
Subsequent studies and media reports over the next decade especially showed similar patterns across the country. Waste transfer stations or incinerators, seriously degrading mining operations, polluting refineries and chemical manufacturers were all much more likely to be in poverty-stricken rural towns or poor urban neighborhoods.
A more extensive national study was completed in 1987 by the Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ) of the United Church of Christ. That study confirmed "race and ethnicity were the most significant factors in deciding where to place waste facilities, landfills, and other environmental hazards."
Like so many of our environmental challenges, one would think we would have addressed these environmental injustices over the 30 years since we first confirmed those trends, but a strong case of denial persists. And despite awareness raised by the research and the organizations that have advocated for change, poor people and people of color continue to be disproportionately affected.
A 20-year progress report was published by the CRJ in 2007 and it concluded 55 percent of the nine million people living near the nation's 413 commercial hazardous waste facilities were non-white. Yet non-whites make up less than a quarter of the general population.
Over the last dozen years, we've seen that poor and minority populations are more vulnerable to all sorts of environmental problems and natural disasters. Flint, Michigan, and its lead-tainted water is 57 percent non-white. During Hurricane Katrina, the most vulnerable and badly flooded places were overwhelmingly poor and African-American.
A 2012 study by Yale University showed high exposure to air pollutants was much more common in the poorest parts of urban areas. They cited a number of examples of predominately Hispanic or African-American urban neighborhoods with extremely high asthma rates, including Clairton, near Pittsburgh.
Those least able to afford alternatives to the unpleasant and unhealthy places they live are the ones most likely to find themselves trapped in such communities.
Interestingly, King reflected on these struggles on May 5, 1966, "There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available."
John Frederick writes about science and the environment every other Wednesday. Visit www.johnjfrederick.com to see his archived Earth Matters columns.