Review

of Troy W. Hartley
Environmental Justice: An Environmental
Civil Rights Value Acceptable to All World Views
By: Skyler Reeves

The key thesis of this article is that environmental ethics and civil rights should be intertwined
due to the fact that environmental issues tend to affect, disproportionately, racial minorities
(i.e. non-white) more adversely and that environmental justice is a fundamental value axiom
that exists in all environmental world views, with the possible exception of hedonistic
utilitarianism (pg. 479).

Hartley begins his paper with a timeline of the environmental justice movement.

1970s
The people of Warren County (NC) mobilized in opposition to a proposed landfill for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) contaminated soils(pg. 478). Because of the counties
opposition to the proposed landfill the Governor of the state selected a different site, Afton
County. What is worth note here is that Afton county was 84% black, while Warren county was
64% black. Additionally, the entire state as a whole was only 24% black.

The issue of the landfill being located in Afton County became a civil rights issue for its
population. Various agencies (scientific, academia, governmental, etc.) had noted that the
landfill would be detrimental to Afton county due to the water table (their primary source for
water) would be jeopardized by the proposed landfill due to its relatively shallow surface
beneath the ground.

1980s
In the 80s the General Accounting Office (GAO) investigated the siting practices for hazardous
waste landfills in EPA Region IV. The findings were as follows:
Blacks represented 20% of Region IVs population.
Blacks comprised <50% of the demographic in 3/4 of the communities surrounding
commercial landfills in the region.

Furthermore, the United Church of Christ funded a study into the socioeconomic relationship
between hazardous waste sites and their surrounding demographic.
The report concluded that race was the most significant variable in determining the location
of a commercial hazardous waste facility (pg. 478).

1990s
Hartley covers the various actions taken concerning the environmental justice movement
during this decade.
Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards
The Michigan Coalition
The EPAs Environmental Equity Workgroup

-This workgroup concluded that the available data demonstrated disturbing trends (pg.
479). Hartley doesnt explicitly tell us what these disturbing trends were but one may
assume that he is implying trends which affect minorities disproportionately.
The First International Conference on Environmental Justice

Ethics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Utilitarianism
Hartley then shifts his focus to describing how the various ethical worldviews fair in terms of
compatibility with environmental justice.

He begins with utilitarianism. He notes that a conflict can arise between utility and justice
when a discriminatory society produces a higher level of net happiness than a
nondiscriminatory society (pg. 479-480). What Hartley is saying here is that utilitarianism and
justice may be at odds with each other in certain circumstances.

Secondly he addresses the economic principle of potential compensation. This criterion
basically evaluates the losses of one portion of society relative to the gains of another portion.
If the net gains of the fortunate portion outweigh the net loss of the unfortunate portion, then
the action (despite the misfortunes) benefit society overall. This principle, Hartley says, relies
on the idea that the winners could compensate the losers and the society would still be
ahead, and then concludes that this [compensation] rarely actually occurs (pg. 480). Note that
this does not invalidate the claim that the winners could compensate the losers in that the
key qualifier used here is the word could as opposed to would. That being said, if one is
seeking to make their own determination on whether or not such a principle is pragmatically
viable, simply compare it to Reagans trickle-down economics. Similar concept.

Next Hartley addresses the substitutability assumption. This assumption basically states that
individuals may freely substitute one set of preferences for another. Basically, you can take a
negative hit if the gains from doing so are more beneficial than not. Think of this idea like
exercising. When one exercises the muscles experience minor trauma and pain. The gain from
this is that the muscles repair themselves stronger than they were before. If the overall benefit
from this gain is worth to an individual, they may choose to freely take the negative hit of initial
pain. Hartley notes that this notion is at odds with both the environmental justice movement
and Bullards environmental blackmail concept (pg. 480).

The blackmail concept asks whether or not it is just to even propose environmental damage to
a community for the sake of compensation.

Hartley then cites one example in NY state where a community denied an environmentally
hazardous proposal that would have proven monetarily lucrative for them. It would behoove
the critical thinker to investigate the matter further and perhaps find examples where
communities accepted monetarily lucrative deals that were detrimental to their respective
environments. Consider investigating the circumstances surround the proposals for the
following three landfills in Kentucky (Rohm and Haas, Jefferson County, KY; Koppers Industries,
Inc. Todd County, KY; and Thomas Industries Inc. Ohio County, KY). Note: See figure 1 at the
bottom to see the location of Rohm and Haas relative to the surround demographic (1990). In
Hartleys defense of this anecdote (in NY), he does say that it presents a challenge, rather
than a refutation (pg. 480).

Summary: Utilitarians would not support the inequitable enforcement of property rights,
particularly because it could give one party an unfair economic advantage over another (pg.
480).

Kantian Rights and Obligations

Hartley begins this section by reminding us of what Kantian ethics consist of. Namely, the
categorical imperative. For non-philosophy majors who are unfamiliar with this it goes as
follows:
(1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should
become a universal law.
(2) All human beings are the be treated as ends in and of themselves and never as merely a
means to an end.

In regards to environmental justice Hartley points out that other academics view a clean
environment as a basic right for all, regardless of race or color (pg. 481).

In summary, one may hold that the view that all people have an inherent right to a clean and
safe environment as fundamental and in consideration to Kantian ethics, holds easily to the
requirements for the categorical imperative.

Rawls Veil of Ignorance

In describing Rawls veil of ignorance one may simply understand it as a way of removing our
own biases from viewpoints. When considering whether or not to commission a hazardous
waste landfill at a particular site we will tend to have our viewpoint colored by how such a
proposal affects us relatively. This is to say we do not make such decisions objectively but
subjectively. The veil of ignorance removes this bias and asks us to examine the question
without any specific information. For example, when deciding where to place a landfill we
would not have access to the real geographic location of any proposed site nor any
demographic information. We would make the choice blindly. Doing so causes us to weigh the
risks and benefits more equitably.

Worldviews

In this section Hartley essentially addresses the notion that just because all worldviews may not
share everything in common and even some may be at odds with justice and equality, it still
remains that vastly different value axioms can coexist within a single world view or among
several different environmental world views (pg. 482).


Final Points
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A final note that Hartley addresses is that equal protection is inadequate with regards to
environmental justice (that is, not all things may be considered without respect to race, creed,
ethnicity, etc.). He says this is so because the disadvantaged communities start from a lower
health standard than white communities (pg. 482) [emphasis added].

Hartley concludes his paper by stating that any discussion of environmental ethics should,
likewise, include a discussion of environmental justice.

Figure 1

Location of Rohm and Haas
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rohm+%26+Haas+Chemicals/@38.1566404,85.867432,11.39z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x232b21cae2e6a48b