Human Rights and the Environment: Environmental Racism

Are poor people more susceptible to environmental pollution? The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights seems to think so. They are bringing the first case of so-called “environmental racism” to the United State’s courts. Environmental racism means that there are systemic issues that place minorities in areas that are polluted. This pollution can cause major health problems, long-term complications, and even cancer and death.
The case that the Inter-American Commission is litigating involves a city in Louisiana, 200 miles away from New Orleans. “Mossville, a community of about 375 households that traces its roots to the 1790s, is surrounded by 14 industrial facilities and has become a poster child of alleged environmental injustice” (Burdeau). The residents of this area are mostly minorities and from lower socio-economic statuses.
Despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun testing the levels of toxicity in the area, people are denying the existence of contamination in the area. Some area leaders have even said that allegation of pollution are completely unfounded. Still, the EPA is determining if the site should be designated a “superfund,” which would then allow large amounts of government funds to be put into relocating the residents, cleaning the area, or reducing the levels of pollution emitted by the corporations in Mossville.
If the Inter-American Commission is correct in its findings, then over four million pounds of pollution are emitted into the air from 14 plants in Mossville. This pollution goes into the air, ground, and water. It is virtually impossible for the residents to avoid the pollution. The socio-economic statuses of the residents of the city also make it nearly impossible to move out the area, to get away from the pollution.
Is this a human rights violation? If so, then how can it be stopped?
According to a study done by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in 1999, the amount of toxins in the residents of Mossville’s blood was, on average, three times higher than normal. It seems like this is a human rights violation, because the residents do not have their right to a safe home.
But I do see a problem in this argument. There is obviously difficult to regulate how much pollution a business or businesses release into one area. Stopping these problems may prove very difficult. It is also a human right to have free movement. It can easily be argued that this is a right for situations just like this one. If a human does not like where they live, they have the right to move to another area, where their life can be better.
Here, the question arises, how much does socio-economic status play into human rights? If someone cannot afford to utilize their human rights as they wish, like in this case, does the government have a duty to step in and pay for those rights? If the government does end up paying for these people to be relocated to another area, it can cause many other instances where human rights violations lead to government assistance needs. Maybe this should happen, but only if the human rights violations are strong enough. The problem I see here is in how to decide what the threshold is for determining the strength of the violation. This would be a very difficult and daunting task. Even if a threshold could be agreed on, there would always be people arguing for why it should be raised or lowered. Would the relocation of citizens who have their rights violated lead to a dangerous precedent?
A similar pollution problem exists in Omaha, but with lead pollution. In 1889, ASARCO, a mineral refining company, began operations in Omaha. The company stayed there until 1997, after the United States Supreme Court ruled against ASARCO for their polluting practices, fining them millions of dollars and declaring all of North Omaha a “superfund” site.
Lead pollution can cause many of the same problems associated with the pollution in Mossville. And, like Mossville, Omaha’s lead polluted land is in an area that has a predominant minority population. Omaha now has the task of cleaning the lead out of every yard affected, which involves digging up all the soil and replacing it with fresh, clean dirt. It is then necessary to re-sod the grass. After paying multiple fines, ASARCO has filed for bankruptcy, so they cannot pay for the cleanup efforts, which are moving very slowly. So, it is up to someone else to pay the bill.
Right now, minorities are paying the price, both in Omaha and Mossville. But how can the government efficiently counteract this problem of “environmental racism?” Does environmental racism actually exist, or are these examples exceptions to the rule? If this type of racism does exist, how do we stop it from happening in the future?