Differentiating the Dilemmas of Climate Change and Social Justice
Climate Justice (CJ) is an umbrella term which encompasses many justice related movements over time. Analysis of the effects of climate change on impoverished and minority communities have become a focus point for discussions on climate and distributive justice. Unfortunately, certain members of the American community are subject to bear the brunt of climate change - a hit that will be delivered on a highly disproportionate level compared to white, more affluent members of the national community. While these are indeed injustices, the root of these injustices are not at all climate related, and therefore should be mitigated on a local level with little consideration in the design of national climate policy.
“All people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations” (Wilder, 2015). Interestingly, this statement echoes the same tone of Martin Luther King, Jr’s I have a Dream speech in which he stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal." Equal protection under environmental and health laws should be a given in this country, but somehow we find ourselves fighting the same battle on a different front. Even on the subject of climate change, certain minority groups are being pushed to the edge of the climate gap while those on the other side invest in immunities from their own actions. While there are many areas of the nation that exemplify the climate gap, none are more painfully obvious than the American Southwest.
Wilder defines the climate gap as “disproportionate and unequal implications of climate change and climate mitigation” (2015). He then goes on to explain that climate vulnerability is linked to three indicators: health, food stability, and energy. As studies have shown, both Arizona and New Mexico rank among the highest in both overall and minority poverty, in large part due to the disproportionate poverty rates of large minority groups that comprise the Southwest region. Let’s break down U.S. census data just to put it in perspective. According to Wilder:
The national poverty rate in the U.S. is less than 15 percent.
36 percent of American Indians and 27 percent of Hispanics live in poverty in the state of Arizona, with similar numbers of 28 percent of American Indians and 21 percent in New Mexico.
So, why is it not surprising that two minority groups that have been oppressed the most in the American Southwest are also the ones dropped in the middle of climate crossfire? The answer is...it isn’t. The climate gap that Wilder describes is a result of a much deeper, older, and more complicated injustice. This is not to say that we should not work to mitigate the effects of climate change in these communities. It is, however, an insight into why climate justice is an issue in the first place. In an effort to establish themselves as the sole beneficiaries of societal infrastructure, systemic practices were put in place in this country and methodically employed (either overtly or covertly) to such a degree that the effects have become self-sustaining. Now, as climate change emerges as the world’s most urgent issue, it should not come as a surprise who would get the short end of the stick. The rich, who can afford to outrun the effects of climate change, are rarely, if ever, non-white in this country. Especially in the Southwest. Regardless of the region, minority groups all over are disproportionately experiencing the effects of climate change just as they have disproportionately undergone the negative effects of the American economic, judicial, and policing system...and lets not forget the energy sector. Even African Americans, who are “less responsible for climate change” (Schlosberg, 2014) are still three times more likely to experience an asthma attack due to poor air quality near their homes (Hsieh, 2015).
Social justice, climate justice, and environmental justice are all different forms of the same concept - justice. National climate policy should seek to solve one thing - mitigating the effects of climate change. To address justice on a sub-national level as it relates to climate change is simply to zoom in and place a band-aid over the real problem of justice in general. Mitigating climate change on behalf of the disenfranchised does not, at all, eradicate disenfranchisement. That is the conceptual goal of justice overall. The cycle of injustice among certain groups within the national community will continue to surface in every aspect of societal debate until we seek to mitigate and eradicate the systemic practices that have long contributed to injustice in this country. Climate change is not everyone’s fault, but it is everyone’s problem. For that reason we must separately define the issues at hand. Climate change policy should be designed around one thing only - mitigating the effects of climate change. Justice, however, should remain a separate problem, but a problem nonetheless. One not to be assuaged through climate policy, but instead through cultural maturation. Both will achieve social justice, but on the appropriate levels.
Comments