Reconstructing the Environmental Licensing Law Based on Ecological Justice

Climate change, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, species extinction—all of these issues point to one thing: environmental health is a global issue that concerns all nations of the world. Now add environmental justice to the list. From South Bronx to Soweto, from Penang to El Paso, communities all over the world are finding commonality in their experiences and goals in seeking environmental justice. Environmental justice was defined by Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, in his seminal 1990 work Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality as “the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of environmental and public health laws and regulations.” In countries around the world, the concept of environmental justice can apply to communities where those at a perceived disadvantage—whether due to their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigration status, lack of land ownership, geographic isolation, formal education, occupational characteristics, political power, gender, or other characteristics—puts them at disproportionate risk for being exposed to environmental hazards. At a global scale, environmental justice can also be applied to scenarios such as industrialized countries exporting their wastes to developing nations. In either case, “environmental and human rights have no boundaries, because pollution has no boundaries,” says Heeten Kalan, senior program officer of the Global Environmental Health and Justice Fund of the New World Foundation in New York City. “Environmental justice organizations are starting to understand that they are working in a global context.”

Environmental JusticeVol. 14, No. 3 Calls for PapersFree AccessCall for Papers: 30th Anniversary of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership SummitDeadline for Manuscript Submission: December 31, 2021Guest Editors: Peggy M. Shepard and Crystal Romeo UppermanGuest Editors: Peggy M. ShepardWE ACT for Environmental Justice, New York, New York, USASearch for more papers by this author and Crystal Romeo UppermanAclima, Inc., San Francisco, California, USASearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:16 Jun 2021https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.29007.cfpAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail The 21st century environmental justice movement will look very different from its 20th century progenitor. Much has changed in the way our world communicates, mobilizes, and governs. This special issue of Environmental Justice will capture the history of environmental justice across the United States, showcasing how the movement has evolved. Moreover, the issue will chart a wireframe of the future of environmental justice in its domestic home of the United States and its international propagation globally.The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, in 1991, where the 17 Principles of Environmental Justice were developed and ratified, propelled the environmental justice movement beyond its antecedent focus to include issues of environmental/public health, worker safety, land use, transportation, housing, resource allocation, and community organizing, base building and enfranchisement. The convening also demonstrated the possibility of building a multiracial grassroots movement around environmental and economic justice, which led to the principles of environmental justice, regional and identity-based networks, academic careers and majors, impact on the EPA, state and city regulations, and advisory boards.This special issue will celebrate the 30th anniversary of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. It will explore the following key questions: What is the history of the environmental justice movement from 1991 to 2020, and how has the movement evolved across the regions of the United States?What is the shared vision of environmental justice that can help create action toward curbing environmental externalities and climate impacts for highly burdened communities?Can the international adoption of the tenets of environmental justice advance and lessen the Global North and Global South divide in addressing climate change?What resources, tools, technologies, and new policies are essential to catalyze the environmental justice movement of the 21st century with the rapid adoption of renewable energy as a replacement for fossil fuels?What is the role of funders (foundations and government) and researchers within and adjacent to the environmental justice movement?All manuscripts should be submitted online by December 31, 2021. All submissions will be subject to a rigorous peer review. We are interested in original research, articles, editorials, policy briefs, legal analyses, reviews, history essays, perspectives, tools for education, empowerment and action, and methodology papers on these topics and others from diverse stakeholders representing all sectors (environmental justice organizations, academia, government, nonprofit, community, private sector, etc.).Topics may revisit the 17 Principles of Environmental Justice, discuss their application and propose new principles; discuss how they have been used, how to better actualize them, and how they can be integrated into the manner in which agencies and organizations operationalize environmental justice work.Suggested topic areas may also include, among others:Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: keys that led to the successes of the past and ways to elevate community engagement and mobilization for the future.The role of technology and geospatial tools in bolstering government decision-making toward the attainment of environmental parity.Environmental justice to locally led action: ways in which grassroots organizations in the Global South can move the needle on systemic issues tied to the vestiges of colonization.Building an environmental justice movement that is reflective of shared principles in a global society.Meaningful and authentic environmental justice engagement for sectors that have yet to engage or are looking to reverse historical aggression toward grassroots organizations.Regenerative environmental justice movements: leadership expansion and transition for successful intergenerational organizing.Science to support environmental justice: filling the gaps necessary to make the case for causality and support bold policy actions.Gaps in the law: how jurisprudence and hearty environmental regulation can continue to embrace a connection with environmental ethics and social justice.Visit Environmental Justice at https://home.liebertpub.com/publications/environmental-justice/259 to learn more, read past issues, and view author submission guidelines (https://home.liebertpub.com/publications/environmental-justice/259/for-authors).Queries to the editor to propose a topic prior to submission are encouraged. Please contact Peggy Shepard at peggy.m.shepard@gmail.com and Dr. Crystal Romeo Upperman at crystal.romeo@gmail.com to initiate your query or for any further details.Visit the Instructions for Authors:www.liebertpub.com/envSubmit your paper for peer review online:https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/envFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 14Issue 3Jun 2021 InformationCopyright 2021, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Guest Editors: Peggy M. Shepard and Crystal Romeo Upperman.Call for Papers: 30th Anniversary of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit.Environmental Justice.Jun 2021.233-234.http://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.29007.cfpPublished in Volume: 14 Issue 3: June 16, 2021PDF download

The standpoint of environmental justice (EJ) has become integral to environmental law in the last thirty years. EJ criticizes mainstream environmental law and advocacy institutions for paying too little attention to the distributive effects of environmental policy, emphasizing elite and professional advocacy over participation in decision-making by affected communities, and adhering to a woods-and-waters view of which problems count as “environmental” that disregards the importance of neighborhoods, workplaces, and cities. This Article shows that the EJ argument, while valid in key respects, ironically contributes to the neglect of a “long environmental justice movement” that, like the long movements for racial equality and labor organizing, put questions of economic power and distribution, democracy, and workplaces and neighborhoods at the center of environmental politics for many decades before the watershed era of environmental lawmaking, 1970-77. The mystery is why this long EJ movement did not have more effect on the mainstream environmental law that arose in that period. The Article shows that we can understand the omissions of EJ concerns once we appreciate that mainstream environmental law was the last major legal product of “the great exception,” the decades of the mid-twentieth century when, unlike any other time in modern history, economic inequality was declining and robust growth was widely shared. The assumptions of that time, along with key contingent decisions by the Ford Foundation, labor unions, and other early funders produced and environmental law that, more than any preceding environmental politics, really did neglect questions of justice. To give both environmental law and EJ their due, we most both locate environmental law within our new historical understanding of patterns of economic inequality and recognize that EJ is not so much a rejection of environmental law’s history as it is a recovery of an essential and neglected strand.

The standpoint of environmental justice (EJ) has become integral to environmental law in the last thirty years. EJ criticizes mainstream environmental law and advocacy institutions for paying too little attention to the distributive effects of environmental policy, emphasizing elite and professional advocacy over participation in decision-making by affected communities, and adhering to a woods-and-waters view of which problems count as “environmental” that disregards the importance of neighborhoods, workplaces, and cities. This Article shows that the EJ argument, while valid in key respects, ironically contributes to the neglect of a “long environmental justice movement” that, like the long movements for racial equality and labor organizing, put questions of economic power and distribution, democracy, and workplaces and neighborhoods at the center of environmental politics for many decades before the watershed era of environmental lawmaking, 1970-77. The mystery is why this long EJ movement did not have more effect on the mainstream environmental law that arose in that period. The Article shows that we can understand the omissions of EJ concerns once we appreciate that mainstream environmental law was the last major legal product of “the great exception,” the decades of the mid-twentieth century when, unlike any other time in modern history, economic inequality was declining and robust growth was widely shared. The assumptions of that time, along with key contingent decisions by the Ford Foundation, labor unions, and other early funders produced and environmental law that, more than any preceding environmental politics, really did neglect questions of justice. To give both environmental law and EJ their due, we most both locate environmental law within our new historical understanding of patterns of economic inequality and recognize that EJ is not so much a rejection of environmental law’s history as it is a recovery of an essential and neglected strand.

The paper analyzes the crucial issue of ecology from the perspective of political philosophy, indicating that the high speed of development of industrial civilization has accelerated the improvement of productivity on one hand, and reconstructed peoples' consumption demand and ability on the other hand. People immersed in their self- indulgence in the process of practices in changing nature, the activities of whom inevitably resulted in the alienation of human being and the over-exploitation of ecology. Ecological Marxism uses the theory of justice to explore the fundamental relation of capitalist system and ecological crisis, redefining the dual value dimensions of human and nature so as to construct a new framework of social justice. By analyzing ecological justice with the dimensions of technology, economy and politics, a conclusion has been reached on the necessary underlying correlation between the capitalist system and ecological crisis- the inherent and internal contradiction within capitalism would consequentially endanger the construction of the principles on ecological justice. Therefore, it is in urgent need to create a comprehensive new pattern of justice, requiring an overall consideration on ecological, economic and social justice to reform the existing political system and world order. Meanwhile, it is necessary to evoke the transformation of the values, so as to establish an ecological civilization in accordance with the principle of justice, as well as the harmonious coexistence between human and nature.

Minority communities, indigenous areas, and low-income neighborhoods, all of which have historically borne unequal burdens of environmental hazards, were the focus of recommendations in a recent iteration of the original report from the 1990s Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations. Therein, environmental and civil rights advocates recommended extensive policy changes and statutory/regulatory implementation to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Department of Justice. Regrettably, these communities and peoples – lacking both the resources and the power to resist unwanted modification of nearby air, water, and land – have been subject for many decades to what amounts to discrimination, characterized as institutionalized racism. The almost universal “not-in-my-backyard” reaction to undesirable land uses has resulted in a disproportionate number of landfills and waste-handling facilities being sited in low-income communities. Many social-welfare groups have been active in attacking injustices in environmental practices, policies, and laws. For instance, in 1991 the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drafted and adopted 17 principles of environmental justice in Environmental Justice in the 21st Century (www.ejrc.cau.edu/ejinthe21century.htm), a defining document for the growing grassroots-level environmental justice movement. In 2002, “Summit II” produced Environmental Justice Timeline – Milestones (www.ejrc.cau.edu/summit2/%20EJTimeline.pdf), which summarized the progress made since the first summit: “Over the past two decades, environmental justice and environmental racism have become household words. Out of the small and seemingly isolated environmental struggles emerged a potent grassroots community-driven movement”. The environmental justice movement in the US clearly has roots in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Around 1970, the US Public Health Service acknowledged that lead poisoning – primarily from lead-based paint – was disproportionately affecting African-American and Hispanic children. Recognition of such issues matured over the next decade and paralleled the general “public awakening” to environmental dangers and individual health risks in the 1980s. More specifically, however, the awareness of community-level environmental injustice in the US may in fact derive from an unlikely source: the United Church of Christ. In 1982, the Church questioned the location – as selected by the State of North Carolina in 1979 – of a landfill, one containing some 60 000 tons of soil contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls that had been applied to unpaved roads for dust control in rural Shocco Township, NC. Shocco's population is about 75% African-American and ranks 97th out of 100 counties in North Carolina in terms of income. Demonstrators protesting the state's actions regarding the landfill received national media coverage, and more than 500 people were ultimately arrested for civil disobedience. Environmental groups and the United Church of Christ harrassed state and federal agencies, leading to an extensive analysis of the site – which eventually resulted in the site's decontamination and closure about 21 years later. Then-Governor Michael Easley described the closing as “a watershed event for the many people who came together and worked diligently to identify and carry through a solution”. The Shocco protests also gave rise to several seminal publications and, in 1990, sociologist Robert D Bullard published the first text on environmental justice, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. The guiding principles of the civil rights movement have many parallels in the environmental justice movement: (1) Ecological unity of all peoples and non-human species; (2) Ethical and responsible use of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other living things; (3) Universal protection from hazardous and radioactive wastes, which threaten the fundamental rights to clean air, land, water, and food; (4) The rights of all workers to a safe and healthy work environment; (5) Opposition to environmentally destructive operations – whether random or systematic – of governments, multinational corporations, and other entities. Eventually, in 1986, the US Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). This substantive law – requiring the dissemination of information to persons previously uninformed about environmental risks – was designed to educate people about local emergencies relating to dangers from chemical storage, use, and release in their midst. In 1992, the EPA established the Office of Environmental Justice, and Congress also passed the policy-based Environmental Justice Act, which has since gone through several iterations. In 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order aimed solely at issues pertaining to environmental justice, minorities, and children. However, despite the Civil Rights Acts and later EPCRA strictures, other substantive legal solutions to the injustices in the workplace and neighborhood have not been dealt with comprehensively – rather, case-by-case lawsuits, siting challenges, and rallying points have been the force behind the movement.

Human transmission to offspring and future generations of acquired epigenetic modifications has not been definitively established, although there are several environmental exposures with suggestive evidence. This article uses three examples of hazardous substances with greater exposures in vulnerable populations: pesticides, lead, and diesel exhaust. It then considers whether, if there were scientific evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, there would be greater attention given to concerns about environmental justice in environmental laws, regulations, and policies at all levels of government. To provide a broader perspective on environmental justice the article discusses two of the most commonly cited approaches to environmental justice. John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness, a form of egalitarianism, is frequently invoked for the principle that differential treatment of individuals is justified only if actions are designed to benefit those with the greatest need. Another theory, the capabilities approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, focuses on whether essential capabilities of society, such as life and health, are made available to all individuals. In applying principles of environmental justice the article considers whether there is a heightened societal obligation to protect the most vulnerable individuals from hazardous exposures that could adversely affect their offspring through epigenetic mechanisms. It concludes that unless there were compelling evidence of transgenerational epigenetic harms, it is unlikely that there would be a significant impetus to adopt new policies to prevent epigenetic harms by invoking principles of environmental justice.

Do people have a right to clean air, safe drinking water, and a healthy environment? Fifty years ago, the concept of a human right to a healthy environment was viewed as a novel, even radical, idea...

The depreciation of values, combined with the expansion of agriculture, industry and the economy, results in the erosion of existing protection mechanisms, as well as commodification and dominance of economic factors. The increasing degradation of the natural environment reveals an increasing number of areas requiring urgent and coordinated protection. The aim of the article is to present the innovative concept of green courts, which are creating a new architecture of modern environmental law. In the considerations, it is indicated that ‘green’ courts at a national level open the way to formulate new legal institutions, facilitate more effective the enforcement of environmental law, and solve legal disputes with alternative adjudicative processes. The article discusses environmental justice based on the example of India and New Zealand, which are among the first countries in the world to have developed an innovative judicial structure and environmental case law. The dogmatic method plays an essential role in the analysis of legal norms concerning the protection of environment, as well as in determining their content and scope. The source materials originate from various legal orders, and diverse cultural and geographical regions. Therefore, in order to discuss the indicated issues, it is necessary to use the comparative method, and thus complete the arguments of a dogmatic and legal nature. In order to present the origins and evolution of law in the scope concerning ‘green’ courts, the historical and legal method is used (temporal retrospection). The considerations emphasize the role of specialist ‘green’ courts in maintaining a balance between the economy, the development of society, and protecting the environmental wellbeing by shifting the focus of jurisprudence to the environmental domain. The article highlights the role of the application and interpretation of environmental norms from an ethical and intergenerational perspective.

The implementation of state administrative law is presently undergoing considerable changes due to modifications in environmental law regulations. A significant alteration is the shift from a business license framework to a business approval framework, which has generated ambiguity in environmental law enforcement, particularly incorporating ecological approvals under the purview of disputes in the State Administrative Court (PTUN). This alteration presents new difficulties in ascertaining the authority of the PTUN and the interpretation of environmental legislation within the framework of state administration. This study employs a qualitative research methodology utilizing two primary approaches: the literature approach and the legal approach. The literature approach examines several academic sources, journals, books, and legal documents pertinent to the evolution of the corporate licensing and approval system and its implementation in environmental law. This literature study elucidates the theoretical framework and legal advancements pertinent to ecological conflicts in the PTUN. The legal analysis involves scrutinizing relevant laws and regulations, particularly state administrative and environmental law, including Law No. 30 of 2014 on Government Administration and Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management. The study's findings indicate that transitioning from a business licensing system to a business approval system has generated ambiguity within PTUN authority, particularly on environmental approvals. The State Administrative Court, as a crucial judicial body under the Supreme Court, possesses autonomy in adjudicating administrative disputes and plays a key role in the enforcement of environmental law. Yet, this alteration necessitates a more explicit elucidation of environmental and state administrative law interplay. This article seeks to examine the function of the PTUN within the Indonesian legal system concerning the enforcement of environmental law and to provide solutions for addressing the issues stemming from this regulatory alteration.

Environmental justice is a significant and dynamic contemporary development in environmental law. Professors Rechtschaffen, Gauna, and O'Neill provide an accessible compilation of interdisciplinary materials for studying environmental justice, interspersed with extensive notes, comments and questions designed to facilitate classroom discussion. Environmental Justice integrates excerpts from empirical studies, cases, agency decisions, informal agency guidance, law reviews and other academic literature, as well as community-generated documents. The materials include writings from the fields of environmental law and civil rights law, as well as sociology, political science, and risk assessment.After examining various conceptions of justice, studies about disparities in environmental harms and benefits, and the theories concerning the causes of such inequities, the book looks at environmental justice in a variety of regulatory contexts. Environmental Justice also explores various tools used in the effort to achieve environmental justice, including citizen suit enforcement of environmental laws, claims brought under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and various non-litigation strategies, including land use and planning tools, disclosure laws and collaborative projects.This second edition includes a new chapter addressing climate change. It also adds expanded coverage of international environmental justice issues, risk and the public health, empirical environmental justice research, and environmental justice for American Indian peoples.

Environment and environmental justice is critical in social work education and practice as the global climate crisis has significant implications for human relationships with the natural and physical environment and ultimately human rights. This chapter considers rights-based and social justice principles and perspectives using an integrated social development approach for transforming systems that create injustices and inequities at a societal level that directly affect individual and community wellbeing. The chapter discusses the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals, the Global Agenda for Social Work and Social Development, and the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. The role of social workers in promoting environmental justice through green social work is discussed, and two case studies from Pakistan and Jamaica illustrate the complex nature of environmental justice concerns. The social dimensions of extreme weather events and disasters and the value of social work practice are highlighted. The chapter concludes with an emphasis on international collaboration and multidisciplinary approaches that can inform social work practice in facilitating sustainable development and environmental justice.

Environmental harm remediation occurs far less than it should in minority and low-income communities. One in six Americans live within three miles of a designated toxic waste or contaminated site, which causes a variety of health hazards. Frequently, these sites are located within minority or low-income communities. Multinational corporations and even governmental agencies sometimes intentionally or negligently exploit loopholes to escape responsibility, especially when poor or low-income communities are involved. Lead agencies that focus on remediation efforts tend to have fewer resources in poorer areas. By contrast, in affluent communities, offending companies commence remediation efforts much more quickly. Such disparate remediation efforts contravene the principle of environmental justice. Delayed or inadequate environmental remediation exacerbates harm across the country, and it disproportionately harms numerous underprivileged U.S. communities. Often, environmental justice scholars and advocates focus on equal enforcement of current environmental protection laws. I argue current environmental protection laws leave room for unequal remediation, and equalizing remediation does not lie in the strict enforcement of current environmental protection laws, particularly, when similarly situated communities are involved. This Article initiates the conversation towards equalizing remediation by highlighting failures to equalize environmental harm remediation activities. It advocates for new policies, which better ensure no community is shortchanged in such activities based on race, geographical location, or income level. It argues for various statutory amendments and distinct regulations capable of better promoting equalized remediation of environmental harms and thereby advancing environmental justice.

This chapter focuses on developing principles of distributive justice — not only looking at ecological justice but also proposing complementary principles of environmental justice. In the context of a multitude of environmental crises and in regard to considerations about distributive justice in particular, it has become apparent that the circumstance of scarcity plays an important role for the articulation of appropriate principles of justice. Based on the assumption that ecological space is (to a degree) finite, considering different scarcity scenarios becomes highly relevant in order for considerations of distributive justice to be able to make recommendations for a world shaped by scarcity, which in turn is where distributive justice becomes most salient. The chapter begins by considering the character of scarcity of ecological space and then turns to the demands of environmental and ecological justice in moderate scarcity scenarios. Based on this, it introduces a grid of different principles of justice that follow from different, more demanding, scarcity scenarios. Finally, the chapter sketches some of the theoretical space surrounding this distributive justice framework by highlighting, among other things, its links with environmental virtue ethics.

Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun (1958) exposed environmental racism and prefigured the tenants of environmental justice by depicting the impacts of poverty and environmental degradation on communities of color. Thirty years before the rise of the current environmental justice movement, Hansberry’s play details the intersectional aims of environmental justice by centering women's experience, by making connections between the health and well-being of women and children, and the larger environment. In this way, an ecodramaturical lens illuminates the power and potential of theatre to inspire civic action. Hansberry’s play stands as a keystone in the rhetorical architecture of the environmental justice movement, which insists that environmental policy must include consideration of where people live, work, play, and worship.  As a historiographic lens, ecodramaturgy can (re)illuminate canonical plays to show their ecological through-lines. Examining the representation of life experience, asking questions about the welfare of bodies, families, and communities affected by racism and economic injustice, ecodramaturgy illuminates canonical plays in new ways, revealing how ideologies of domination and white supremacy that have caused both social and ecological havoc across the land. Rob Nixon (2013) identifies the environmental degradation resulting from longstanding patterns of U.S. imperialism as “slow violence” perpetrated on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. As the environmental justice movement would argue some 30 years later, Hansberry’s play makes clear that environmental health and social justice are inextricably linked, and that ecological concerns must be understood as intertwined with economic justice as well as gender and racial equity. Below, I examine the way environmental and social justice concerns came together in this hallmark play, revealing a (then) radical ecological viewpoint that the environment is coupled with human health and welfare. I contend that the white supremacy that the Youngers face when they plan to move to a new home not only constitutes systemic environmental racism but reflects and arises out of the historic abuse of land and bodies on which the U.S.extractive economies depend. My analysis traces the subtle ways those legacies infect and damage the day-to-day lives of those who carry the disproportional burdens of that historic abuse. I foreground clues to the ecologies represented on stage, including human bodies and habitat, in order to examine the environmental implications of the Youngers’ struggle and racial and class-based oppression and hierarchies the play represents. Hansberry’s claim to homeplace in the milieu 1950s foreshadows the principles of environmental justice in prescient ways.