How do we define an environmental problem? What and who does it concern? Take climate change, for example. While people in Bangladesh and the U.S. southwest are slated for horrendous droughts, floods, and general devastation, Canadians and Russians will be raking in the dough, as their countries become the breadbaskets of the world. Elkhorn coral may become extinct from the ocean’s rising pH level, but mosquitoes and kudzu will flourish in the warm, CO2-rich atmosphere. And because of larger forces of nature at work, climate change probably will not pose problems for the Earth’s orbit or the geologic infrastructure of the planet.
Since larger physical processes are unaffected, those who work to solve the “environmental problems” of today seem to be primarily concerned with preserving life. It seems wrong to consider something an environmental problem just because it harms any living thing. As I understand it, organisms are constantly giving and taking, engaged in both destructive and constructive activities within the complex web of life at any given time. Perhaps, then, we should consider an environmental problem as something that harms a larger group of organisms than it helps, and in that case, climate change certainly should be considered an environmental problem. What’s more, from the view of a humanitarian environmentalist, we are condemning multitudes of our fellow humans to difficult lives, even death, because of problems we have almost certainly caused. The lifestyle of overconsumption that many Americans enjoy today was made possible by centuries of injustice and exploitation of people and natural resources. That legacy is one that unfortunately continues today.
The power that humans have over the environment is unprecedented. We cover whole islands in concrete and allow things to grow only where we wish them to (hello, Manhattan). We level mountains to extract the coal to power our homes. We drive large predatory animals to extinction with the pull of a trigger because they threaten our livestock. This domination over nature is the cause of most of our current “environmental problems”: climate change, water and air pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and resource depletion.
How do we maintain this level of control over our surroundings? In some cases, by squelching the voice of various dissenting human groups and failing to recognize the legitimate claim of non-human organisms to existence. I believe that the biggest threat to the environment today is environmental injustice. Broadly defined, environmental injustice describes the plight of disadvantaged groups (human and non-human) that suffer from environmental risks, hazards, and violations of rights, and that are denied access to natural resources, information, and participation in decision-making.
Environmental injustice can be seen less than 20 blocks north of Columbia, where Harlem boasts the highest asthma rates in New York City. Harlem is also burdened by the highest concentration of polluting municipal facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, marine transfer stations, and bus depots. These facilities are environmental health risks that have been linked to the high asthma rates. Rather than spreading the environmental risks and benefits equally throughout Manhattan, one low-income community is overly burdened.
In the non-human arena, it is often the case that organisms deemed destructive to property or dangerous to humans are systematically denied the right to exist. The wolf, for example, was for centuries hunted in North America because of the belief that it killed people and livestock. It is only recently that the wolf has gained a “voice” in debates about resource management and has been reintroduced to areas where it was once driven to near extinction.
Bangladesh, one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the world, is expected to be the hardest hit by climate change—as sea levels rise, flooding of low-lying land will cause millions of people to be displaced. Yet its voice is disregarded daily by other countries, in particular those that are most to blame for the high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since we are already experiencing the effects of climate change, disregard of voices translates into disregard of lives, which means... murder?
Not until we recognize the legitimacy of different viewpoints within our world will we be able to truly solve the most pressing environmental issues of today. Rather than exclusively allowing those with the most money, the loudest voices, or the most military force to define the right solutions to environmental problems, groups from all levels should be involved in the decision making and be able to protect themselves from unjustifiable levels of environmental risk. In the case of climate change, recent international negotiations have presented a unique opportunity to include a larger sphere of viewpoints—however, many decision-makers have not taken advantage of it.
Climate change is the most far-reaching environmental problem, one that exacerbates all others, and the people most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are those in disadvantaged, poverty-stricken communities. It is essential to set up systems of participatory justice, in which everyone affected by the conflict engages in finding a satisfactory resolution.
The author is a Barnard College sophomore. She is a Barnard EcoRep and the president of the Green Umbrella.