of compensation hovers disturbingly over every EJ case. Who will pay for all the damage done to people’s bodies and dreams when they encounter environmental injustice? Who will pay to relocate Shishmaref, a community whose suffering has been caused by others (especially when the “others” are less visible)? The answer is “no one,” in the absence of strategic organizing and framing that provides an effective leverage point for justice. This makes the fifth EJ frame dimension more important than ever: building solidarity with other communities through sharing information, creating networks, joining in protests, and working at multiple levels for social justice. This means co-inventing an inclusive future that draws on EJ research and that uses imaginative organizing and framing skills to create alliances between groups that can support EJ together, even if temporarily. Coalition building is difficult but necessary work, since not only EJ, but also racism, is receiving new infusions of energy.
Conclusion
If ten thousand people camping at Standing Rock to protect the Missouri River could not stop the siege of the Dakota Access Pipeline, then what does it take?...I know, we all know, it will take more. And toward this, our work continues.—Layli Long Soldier (2017)
This chapter has invited you to explore the environmental justice frame and its evolution over time, using a case study of Carver Terrace as a point of comparison with more contemporary understandings of EJ. Carver Terrace was like many other contaminated communities but also atypical—the first minority community to demand and win a federal buyout. The story is richer and more complex than what I touched on here, but the abridged version allowed us to dive more deeply into a particular time and place and to think about connections and contrasts with other situations. I showed how a sociological framing theory is useful for understanding the EJ frame at multiple levels. Framing theory applies to much more than EJ; it helps you to think about your own life, your meaningful frames, and how they connect to your actions and those of others. It equips you to be more critically aware of the many frames that drift our way through cyberspace, mediascapes, and so many other sources. It gives you tools for social change.
Here is one last image, which is a contrast with the desolate landscape we encountered earlier. Carver Terrace residents finally won a federal buyout in 1990. Grassroots leaders who told them that “political organizing matters” were right. CTCAG/FUSE persuaded one of their key allies, Texas Democratic Rep. Jim Chapman, a member of the budget appropriations committee for the EPA, to attach a provision to the EPA’s budget that authorized a Carver Terrace buyout. Without CTCAG/FUSE and their mobilizing, organizing, coalition-building, and framing skills, there would be no buyout. Flawed as the political-economic system might be, it pays to know how it works. Yet, consistent with deep and ongoing structural inequalities, the victory was bittersweet. Imagine the residents in new homes that they bought or built, breathing a sigh of relief, enjoying a space away from the toxic contamination. Then realize that some didn’t live to see the relocation, and others died too soon afterward, including Patsy Oliver. Survivors won a safer place to live, but they lost their physical community. For those who moved away, and especially for younger generations, the battle was worth the precious chance for a healthier life and a better future. Yet to truly heal what systematically produces environmental injustice, environmental racism, and global pollution on a massive scale, as Layli Long Soldier says, “it will take more.” The EJ frame will continue to evolve, as it must, if we want to live on a planet that is sustainable, and not only for the privileged few. As researchers, we also evolve (yes, it is happening at this very moment as I write!), discovering new questions and solutions that become part of the collective stream of EJ scholarship and recipes for action. You, too, can be part of this solution.
Deepening Our Understanding
1 Search the term environmental justice on the Internet, and see what you turn up. How visible is the EJ frame in cyberspace, and what do you learn from this?
2 Identify an EJ issue or event (preferably local), and analyze the effects of the framing of that issue. Do you see any evidence of a counterframe?
3 The way we construct meaning shapes how (and whether) we participate in social movements. Think about your own identity. Can you “see” yourself taking part in a protest action, for example, a march? If so, why? If not, why not?
4 Framing includes how we interpret everything—“nature,” our bodies, race, gender, who/what we consider to be “other,” and much more. Based on your own identity and, thus, interpretations, where do you draw the line and start feeling uncomfortable?
5 Social media has become an important part of the EJ movement. A recent strategy has been to post Indigenous names on Instagram during hikes in outdoor recreational areas, calling attention to the missing Indigenous history (https://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/affordable-housing/posting-your-hike-on-instagram-now-you-can-tag-your-locations-indigenous-name-20180523). What is your response to this? What are some other ways that technology could be used creatively for EJ?
I thank Samantha Lewis for her assistance with bibliographical research on environmental justice. Any quotes are from my own interviews unless otherwise attributed. I dedicate this to all who make EJ possible.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2002). Toxicological profile for creosote. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp85-c1-b.pdf
Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016). Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 321–40.
Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (2014). Cultivating food justice: Race, class, and sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, P. (1992). Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33, 267–281.
Čapek, S. (1992). Environmental justice, regulation, and the local community. International Journal of Health Services, 22(4), 729–746.
Čapek, S. (1993). The environmental justice frame: A conceptual discussion and an application. Social Problems, 40(1), 5–24.
Čapek, S. (1999). Erasing community: Institutional failures and the demise of Carver Terrace. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 139–162.
Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City and Society, 23(2), 210–229.
Edelstein, M. (2018). Contaminated communities: Coping with residential toxic exposure. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2017). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. New York: Routledge.
Greene, E. (2017). ReZpect our water. Green American, 109, 23.
Helm, J., Nishioka, M., Brody, J., Rudel, R., & Dodson, R. (2018). Measurement of endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals in hair products used by black women. Environmental Research, 165, 448–458. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.03.030
Long Soldier, L.
