Juana Rocha | April 2021
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is a belief in which individuals are responsible for their own well-being without help from the government or other state organizations. This structure not only a responsible party for environmental crisis’ in the world, but it also deprives the people who need help from the government the most. The key actors involved in neoliberalism are the people, the government, corporations, and the environment. First, people who are either benefiting or greatly being affected by neoliberalism are the main stakeholder because their decisions are being made by the government. People who are low to middle income, seeking help from the government, are at the greatest loss due to the belief that each person is required to take care of their own well-being. Not everyone is born into wealthy families or has the resources to end the cycle of poverty in their families. Instead, they look for the government to help them in any way that they can. Unfortunately with neoliberalism, they do not have anywhere to turn to. Instead, they must continue this cycle and ultimately be affected the most by this belief. The government is also a key stakeholder because they believe they are doing what is best financially and economically for their states. By having people take responsibility for their own well-being, they are furthering themselves as working for the people, and instead of seeking profits at the expense of their well-being. For corporations, Neoliberalism benefits them because they can take advantage of deregulated markets, privatization of businesses, and the free market. This would be the prime time for them to excel because they have fewer restrictions and are able to profit the most.
The environment is also an important stakeholder because it is at the greatest loss, with the least voice. Neoliberalism contributes to the environmental crisis because the environment is entirely dependent on the people and things that affect it. With neoliberalization, the government is allowing for everyone to do what they need to do to ensure they are taking responsibility for their own lives, without stepping in to intervene when these actions affect the environment the most. Instead of finding ways to regulate certain practices or businesses that impact it the most, it is stepping back and not assuming liability. Michael Maniates book titled Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World? writes, “the depoliticization of environmental degradation is in full swing across a variety of fronts and shows little sign of abating” (Maniates, 34). Without intervention, individual responsibility for environmental issues only prolongs the problem and does not solve it. Governments need to step in and implement laws and programs to make a bigger impact on environmental injustices.
One way to challenge neoliberalism is through voting, where people are elected who have more liberal views instead of a more conservative approach. Liberal views tend to focus on individuals’ rights and democracy. By getting people to vote for electives that have the mindset of what can the government do for individuals, instead of what can individuals do for the government, neoliberalism would not be the main concern. Through this, there needs to be a power given to individuals instead of corporations and special interests who have excess money to spend to get what they want. George Monbiot in his article, Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our, writes “Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed” (Monbiot). There is a need for democracy that instead assumes the liability of individuals' well-being to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of, while big corporations can profit off of them. This approach to social change is valuable to ensure that the well-being of all residents is the main priority and instead not used as a pawn for corporations to profit off of.
Settler colonialism
Settler colonialism has been seen through various forms throughout history, especially through assimilation and genocide. Those two, although are the most heard about ways that have impacted Indigenous people, are definitely not the only ways that have affected them the most. Furthermore, through taking land, sequestering them from resources, polluting their lands and communities, Indigenous people have been greatly disadvantaged in regard to how they are treated by the government.
The greatest key actor in settler colonialism, are the Indigenous people, who are forced to give up their lands and assume the consequences for the government’s wrongdoings. Not only are they being deprived of land that belongs to them, but with the land they do have, they are being neglected through lack of resources and environmental injustices. Second, the government, which takes advantage of the position that Indigenous people are in, is also a stakeholder because they can make changes to the lives of Indigenous people but instead are continuing the effects of settler colonialism. Just because settler colonialism is seen as happening in the past, does not mean that it isn’t happening now, especially with the regulations that the government has on Indigenous lands. This can be seen in Kyle Powys Whyte’s chapter on Environmental Justice, Indigenous Peoples, and Consent, where they explain how Indigenous people have never consented to the pollution of their lands (Whyte, 37). They are victims and have to stand by and watch their lands get destructed, not only be harmful to their communities but the environment as well.
The exploitation of Indigenous lands to extract natural resources and hazardous dumping greatly affects the lives of the Indigenous. These practices are being done on lands that are sacred to Indigenous people, who have a great connection with Mother Earth. In the interview, For a Change in Paradigm, Tom Goldtooth says “The future of mankind depends on a new economic and environmental paradigm that fully recognizes the life-cycles of nature and recognizes the Rights of our Mother Earth” (World Rainforest Movement, 289). Tom Goldtooth brings for the connection that is seen with regarding the Earth as sacred and caring for it with great care. The treatment of Mother Earth is the complete opposite when profits are involved. Instead, Indigenous people are forced to see their lands getting ruined by corporations and government agencies who have no regard as to how this land is important to those to who it truly belongs. Hazardous dumping compromises the drinking water in these areas and the pollution causes hazardous air qualities that lead to long-term health problems. Not only are the irresponsible actions of these agencies hurting the Indigenous people, but the environment as well.
Land recognition has been a trend in the past year, where organizations and corporations that reside on Indigenous lands acknowledge whose lands they belong to. This social change is to promote the recognition of the tribes that the land belonged to before settler colonialism. This approach to social change is problematic and valuable at the same time. It is problematic because recognizing who the land belonged to, only reminds everyone who was taken advantage of. It is also valuable because it educates the public. It is a way of trying to combat settler colonialism by informing everyone that settler colonialism happened and because of it, these tribes are no longer the owners of the land. It is hard to think that this social change is helpful because it feels as though there is no true action being done to return the land to its owners.
Green gentrification
As many new upper-income families find areas to live in, many turn to areas that have green amenities, without having worrying that rents and mortgages may be high in the area. What they seek are areas that they can enjoy the outdoors in, whether it be parks, trails, or other green spaces (Lecture 3-17-21). With an increase in demand for green spaces, especially in highly populated cities, residents who have lived there for many years, and can no longer afford the prices of the area, are forced to move out. This causes green gentrification to increase, and for families who are unable to afford these green areas to move to areas where there are no green amenities and more likely prone to other environmental problems, like pollution. Low-income families are a key stakeholder, as their homes are being taken over by households who can afford the increase in property values and can afford high rents and mortgages. They are the most vulnerable, as they also want to benefit from green spaces, but it comes at a high cost.
While green spaces are great for the environment, there is a deeper side to this regarding environmental justice. At what cost are green spaces more valuable than the displacement of families who have lived in areas for many years, and who see the area as a part of their community. Green spaces are targeted towards communities that will increase property value and in the long run, provide outside investors with great profits (Gould & Lewis, 25). This is at the cost of low-income families who do not get to benefit from the areas and instead are being displaced so that others can make a profit off of their communities. When the environment can benefit from certain projects like green spaces, there needs to be a bigger picture in considering who these actions benefit and who it is harming in other ways.
Many activists are pushing for lands to be utilized to help current communities while preventing new developments from taking over the areas. With affordable housing, revamping current communities with green spaces without the increase in rents and mortgages, and the prevention of hazardous pollutants to be located in areas that target low-income communities. Using areas that would otherwise be gentrified, increases the opportunity for low-income households to also benefit from green spaces. Many areas are populated with low-income households that will not see any green spaces added to their neighborhoods until the demographic drastically changes. It also causes the demographic to drastically change when green spaces are changing the people who can afford to live there. With affordable housing and green spaces combined, the people who most need it can live in favorable areas and have green spaces around them. They no longer have to travel to another part of the city or outside the city to take advantage of the environment.
There has also been a push for community gardens to increase in areas of low-income communities. This is also valuable as gardens can be both used as green spaces and a place to grow produce and other plants. Bringing the community together, while also helping by providing more green areas benefits both the environment and the people who live in these areas. While these are a great way of promoting environmental benefits, this cannot also be the only green spaces these communities get. Due to the property values unlikely increasing due to a community garden, they also need parks or other green areas to enjoy as well without there being a higher cost to it. With government spending focused on communities with little to no access to green areas, these areas will feel recognized and know that they are also valuable and also deserve to enjoy the outdoors.
Racially restrictive redlining
In Ta-Nehisi Coate's reading The Case for Reparations, he highlights the concept of redlining when the Federal Housing Administration was created and how areas were categorized with ratings based on the people that lived there. Redlining was found profoundly in the types of loans that black people were able to obtain and the process of obtaining a mortgage, almost deemed impossible because of their race (Coates, 58). These forms of racially restrictive redlining made it hard for black people to invest in properties, which is a big way to gain wealth. Because of their race, they were deprived of this opportunity and instead were forced to rent in places that were not the best areas. In return, white people were able to take advantage of the system, and since there was one less group to compete against, they were able to obtain more land. They were also allowed by law to not have to rent these spaces to black people and instead they could make all-white communities, making these areas desirable. Redlining has a long history and is still seen today by communities with similar demographics, based on race.
These areas are then targeted by corporations who impact the environment negatively and cause hazardous environments to be created in these communities. Areas that are considered valuable, and often related to white communities, would not see a power plant or other forms of pollutions in the area. Instead, black communities and other people of color are forced to deal with the costs of the environmental hazards that these corporations create. Without the lack of resources and the time that these communities have to combat these corporations, they are left to deal with the consequences. These environmental problems, then cause health problems to the residents in the community. Respiratory issues are a great concern because of the pollution that is around these areas. There are more cases of asthma in children who live in these areas than in other areas (Lecture 3-22-21). Long-term health problems will only continue and possibly pass from generation to generation, and it is because of the areas that people are forced to live in and can’t afford to move away from.
Reparations are a specific social change that would be valuable to combating the effects of redlining from the past and changing its course in the present. Black communities were cheated out of properties that are worth more now and could have contributed to wealth being dispersed to the black population instead of just white people owning most areas. With reparations, whether it is money, property, or another form to make amends, black people will be able to break cycles that are rooted with their race because of the treatment by white people. Not only this, but it will allow them to move to areas that do not have high environmental problems and can prevent being exposed to hazardous products. Reparations are a means of making things right and giving back to those who were greatly impacted by past laws.
Risk assessment
Risk assessment is evaluating the amount of exposure and who it impacts. It is a various list of steps that are taken to identify what is being exposed, how much of it would be a problem if people are exposed to it, who does this affect, and what is the probability that people will be impacted and by how much. These steps are taken to evaluate what people can be potentially harmed by and how to find alternatives if possible. Communities that live in areas where there is a high exposure to hazardous chemicals and environments are the most vulnerable and a key stakeholder. If these communities do not have the means to find new places to live, they are stuck living in potentially hazardous environments. Focusing on the health impacts that these environments can cause, companies should also be responsible for what they are putting into the environment (Lecture 4-5-21).
One way that this contributes to the environmental crisis is through the assessment of the pollutants that are being released and potentially harming people’s health and the environment. These hazards are leading to long-term health problems, especially cancer, and communities are the most vulnerable to them (Lecture 4-12-21). This evaluation of hazardous pollutants is crucial to seeing what ways the environment is being impacted and how these pollutants are affecting the people exposed to it. While there are some forms of trying to limit these exposures, like with regulations and permits, risk assessments are needed to ensure that the implemented laws are actually making a difference and if so, how much is it decreasing or increasing exposure.
Using different methods of risk assessment is a way to challenge this structure because while risk assessment focuses on mostly cancer, there are other health problems that are caused by environmental hazards. If there is a focus on finding other outcomes of being exposed to environmental hazards, there would be better research to link to other parts of the body that are being affected (Tesh, 26). This is valuable because instead of categorizing everything as potential cancer, it goes into detail and sees how pollutants are harming the body in different ways and to what extent. This helps to try and solve the problem; how much people are being exposed to and why they are being impacted.
Racist policing of public space
There is no doubt that public space and the safety around it, varies from race to race. While white people can enjoy public spaces without the fear of being targeted for their race, BIPOC communities do not have the same privilege. Racist policing of public space happens in many ways, and most recently we have seen where BIPOC people, especially black people, are targeted in public spaces because others feel uncomfortable that they are enjoying or using these spaces. Some of the key actors are the BIPOC people that have to deal with racist policing way too often and feel unsafe as they will be targeted for enjoying the spaces that white people can enjoy freely.
Racist policing contributes to the environmental crises because it is an inequality that other races can enjoy outdoor spaces, but people of color are unable to without feeling unsafe. There is a great increase in getting people outdoors, but this is targeted towards the white race as they would feel unsafe with other races around. Vice versa, people of color also feel unsafe because they know that if a white person feels uncomfortable around them, they will most likely be interacting with law enforcement or other policies that would prevent them from enjoying public spaces freely.
An approach to social change to challenge racist policing of public spaces is to educate others on how accusation and harassment affect BIPOC people. There needs to be more awareness brought to attention that targeting these communities because of their race is racist and that it only increases racism and prolongs bringing all communities together. There has been an increase in videos and stories in social media, where people of color are being targeted by white people for doing things that they believe are incorrect because it is someone of the opposite race doing it. One example is the lady that called the police on a group of black people who were grilling at the park, and although others could grill at the park, she targeted them because of their race. While this documentation of these stories is upsetting, it educates people that this goes on every day in the country and that racism is far from gone. Also specifying places that have a history connected to people of color and ensuring that the history is still there gives a safe space for communities that otherwise would not feel safe in the areas. In Finny’s Forty Acres and a Mule, they write “For many of the surviving African Americans, “re-identifying with Virginia Key helped revive their memories of place within a political culture where black historical consciousness and power had been limited” (Finny, 63). This is important to create areas that bring historic value and provide a place for people of color to feel safe, without bringing about segregation. Having all areas be equally accessible to all people regardless of color and without policing causes for people of color to be targeted.