At some point during the U.S. environmental movement of the 1970s and 1980s, "environmentalism" became a rich (and mostly) white activity that - to some - reeked of hypocisy. Hypocisy because instead of taking actions to minimize global (or even regional) impacts, many actors "off loaded" their impacts to other places, usually those places that were less well-off. Therefore, we have the example of computer recycling leading to parts-dumping in India, Africa, China and Southeast Asia. The problem was one basically caused by the more well-off and exported to areas of poverty and little public health oversight.
The environmental movement also became to be seen as "rich" because of price premiums that were paid for "going green," along with which groups were "buying-in" on this concept (or - with the case of food stamps - able to buy at all). For example, if a family were to purchase only organic fruits and vegetables, the cost could (depending on the region, season, and vegetable) increase by 50% or more, and many food stamp programs didn't allow for their use with organic products (which leads to the question of what factors people at the governmental level were using in order to make that decision). Furthermore, even if one didn't use food stamps, the marginal cost of paying for organic is greater for people of lower incomes, and so one could easily see wealthier families purchasing organic foods. (Of course, food distribution patterns tend to follow either sale figures or expectation of sales, and so one is left with a situation today where you will find little - if any - organic produce in poorer-neighborhood grocery stores.) Once this dichotomy became established between the economic classes, I argue that it became easy to label "organic" as part of "elitism" (along with imported foods, alternative food and dietary options, etc.), and something that is "other" and unwelcome in poorer communities.
In other ways that it is seen as "rich" is that many of the concepts of "environmentalism" don't really seem to adequately address the poor. They are development projects of the "next generation" of houses, office buildings, etc.; the costly certification projects of landmark buildings; massive re-urbanization projects meant to bring in capital; etc. I would argue that these methods are drawing upon the development model that is seen in the technology sector: build expensive prototypes, get investment capital (usually from rich people/institutions), develop them for mass-marketing, and (if successful) achieve buy-in by as big a group as possible. This is a top-down approach to development, and with technological developments, this sort of thing has been shown to be necessary, short of massive investment by government (e.g., the national road network) or charitable foundations (e.g., malaria research funded by the Gates Foundation). By pursuing this course of action, though, the environmental movement has forgotten (or does not focus on) the little guy. Indeed, a technology-based solution for the "little guy" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, because this segment of the population doesn't really make a good investment for business (i.e., they don't have a lot of potential capital to spend on future technology). However, they are the most in need of a better environment.
A few years ago, I learned about Majora Carter, an environmental justice advocate working in the New York City metropolitan area, specifically the South Bronx. During a TED talk in 2006, she showed how urban renewal can actually bring about major help to poor communities. Similar activities have recently been started in Ypsilanti (Growing Hope) and Detroit by former SNRE students, as well as in other cities around the United States. Although these projects are not major cash-generating machines, they do offer things that are of major importance to people: access to cheap and healthy food, improve peoples' lives through developing a healthy psychology, and tearing down urban barriers in neighborhoods.
Some people assume that "green collar jobs" mean the development of help for rich people. However, inner city environmental groups not only help change the paradigm of how to think about "environmentalism", they also go about bringing in environmental values to urban centers - some of the least "environmental" areas one might imagine - in ways that bolster and renew those living there. The recent "stimulus package" from the Obama administration has a major part for "green jobs." One can only hope that whomever is overseeing these funds will take a lesson from inner-city green organizations and provide funds for those people who can least affort to further hindered due to their economic inability to themselves be major players in the technology-derived environmentalism that has dominated a lot of the consciousness of the past twenty years.
No comments:
Post a Comment