Introduction
Accra, Ghana is home to one of the largest graveyards in the world, but not for humans. The bulk of the world’s electronics are discarded in the Agbogbloshie neighborhood. There it will remain for years as people search through trash piles, recycling what they can amongst the plumes of toxic smoke. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have polluted our planet. Yet, most people in industrialized countries often fail to acknowledge where waste goes once it has served its purpose. Where do all the clothes, packaging, toys, and electronics retire? Similarly, the toxic byproducts created by manufacturing plants do not simply disappear once they leave the smokestack—and neither do the side effects. The very act of pollution is targeted in nature by pushing innumerable health and environmental issues onto nations that are less suited to manage them. Not only do the ramifications of pollution affect everyone on the planet, but they disproportionately impact historically disadvantaged populations.
Climate Colonization
A majority of the world’s worst pollution resides in low-income countries, often referred to collectively as the “Global South.” The contamination in these places pervades every aspect of life and can have drastic impacts on life-expectancy. While air quality is one of the best indicators of contaminants, toxic substances can transfer through water, soil, food, and even family. Chemicals such as PFAs (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are known as “forever chemicals,” because they do not break down in the environment nor in our bodies. This means the contaminants which mothers absorb can be transferred to their children before they are even born.
Pollution is pervasive, but all contamination must come from somewhere. For the world’s most polluted nations, it does not originate within their own borders. Trends in air quality pollution show that low-income countries are exposed to more air contamination than high-income countries—predominately in the Middle East and South-East Asia. This discrepancy becomes much clearer when we understand how pollution moves across the world. There are two main ways environmental contamination can spread: through the movement of waste and industrial offshoring of pollution.
*Increase in life expectancy when meeting WHO air quality guidelines*
Since the 90s, western countries have exported much of their waste to mostly nations in South/East Asia—most to China. Similar trends occur in Africa as mentioned earlier with Ghana’s Agbogbloshie electronic waste landfill. Eastward down the coast, the Niger delta continues to suffer staggering damage from pollution, conflict, and corruption related to Shell Oil’s practices in the region. In one instance 40,000 barrels of oil were spilled, which affected over 457 communities by damaging farming, fishing, drinking water, mangrove forests, and religious shrines. When Nigerians attempted to sue Shell in the UK over this 2011 oil spill, they lost because the 6 year legal deadline had passed. While Shell avoided losing a suit over one of its many spills in the region, Nigerians will continue to struggle with economic, agricultural, and health detriments for much more than 6 years.
With a few examples a trend appears of high-wage countries pushing environmental problems onto low-wage countries. We often portray this as a simple fact, but applying a bit of historical context can help frame these problems. Is it truly a coincidence that a British oil company is responsible for the intense pollution of a nation colonized by Britain? One look at Africa or Latin America and it becomes obvious that pollution from western powers often aligns with imperial histories. Pushing hazardous issues onto other communities—inherently devaluing and shortening their lives—is known as creating “sacrifice zones.” In fact, this practice is not confined to the international scale, we can also observe it within nations.
Targeted Pollution
One of the largest environmental causes of human mortality is known as ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5). Researchers at Harvard have found that Black, Asian, and Latino communities in the U.S. are exposed to higher concentrations of PM2.5 than their White counterparts. Even further, people of color are exposed to a wider variety of pollution sources than White Americans—the most exposed population: Black Americans.
This should come as no surprise considering the United States’ historically racist practices of redlining and urban removal. These policies ensured that industries would be focused in certain areas of cities effectively sacrificing those communities to pollution. Most of these neighborhoods are majority Black and usually low-income. Some prominent examples include shingle mountain in Southern Dallas, chemical valley in West Virginia, and cancer alley in Louisiana. Louisville also has its own sacrifice zone known as Rubbertown. All these areas are home to communities who suffer widespread health issues at the hands of industries that supposedly support them.
In this case, racialized and imperial practices have similar outcomes. Within the United States, White populations produce more pollution while inhaling less and vice versa for Black and Latino communities. Similarly, high-wage countries are responsible for industrial pollution which low-wage countries must contend with. Discrepancies like these are caused by certain government regulations and industry practices. The creation of sacrifice zones—both domestic and abroad—reveals an inherent disregard for human life on the part of polluters.
Economic Importance of Fossil Fuels
It would be dishonest to discuss pollution without addressing the importance of fossil fuel industries. A common justification for “sacrifice zones” is that fossil fuel companies bolster the economy and provide jobs, particularly for affected communities. The energy industry is crucial to our economy, but do the benefits really warrant such pollution? To start, employee health issues can stem from work related pollution, with many lacking adequate health insurance to compensate for workplace diseases and injuries. Redlining practices and proximity to industry severely devalue properties in the area, effectively trapping low-income residents. How can any community benefit from steady jobs if they are simultaneously caged and poisoned?
Not to mention, that once a city is polluted it can dissuade corporations from moving there, as was partly the case when Amazon overlooked Louisville as a location for its operations center. After all, what company would want to move its employees to an already polluted area when cleaner cities exist nearby. The economic benefits for communities do not outweigh the detriment that accompanies pollutive industries.
Secondly, the fossil fuel industry is an unsustainable model based on consumption of a finite resource which continues to cause irreparable damage to our climate. A common counterargument is that climate change is not as drastic as certain leaders posit. Confusion about climate change often stems from the misinterpretation of scientific models. The most common climate change predictor (RCP 8.5) is based on concentrations of carbon that deliver certain amounts of global warming. Put simply, RCP 8.5 is a sort of worst-case scenario which scientists use to predict future climate changes. RCP 8.5 represents plausible predictions of what would happen if we were to continue “business as usual,” i.e. not do anything about emissions. Growth in the clean energy industry and enactments of climate policy, mean that we will probably not see results as drastic as predicted by RCP 8.5. However, this does not mean our climate issues disappear, they are simply delayed. Our deadlines can only be pushed back so far before we have run out of time. This is also not a linear trend, meaning that the changes are not even as time passes, our status will worsen with each passing deadline. When it comes to life on our planet, would we not be better off safe than sorry?
Lastly, some simply deem that the economy is more relevant than the environment. Fossil fuels make up the backbone of many communities, ripping it out would destroy them. Yet, those very communities are being destroyed by this supposed backbone . Humanity will always need energy to survive, so to propose dismantling this industry is simply unfeasible. Instead, we should aim to clean the business by converting to sustainable methods such as air, wind, and clean nuclear energy. Our governments providing the same incentives to clean energy as is afforded to the fossil fuel industry would be a step in the right direction. The beauty of capitalism is that most anything can succeed with the right amount of money and demand, both of which are available. It is indeed easier to reform our economy than fix the climate once it has been sufficiently damaged.
Corporate Culpability
If I have not made it obvious to this point, the largest culprits of pollution are large-scale industries. Much of the ongoing climate debate emphasizes the responsibility of the consumer to monitor their carbon footprints. While the usage of cars and electricity in homes are significant, they pale in comparison to the tons of carbon pumped into the atmosphere by the billions every year.
Fossil fuel companies are aware of their impact on our planet, in fact they reliably collect data on the matter. Once aware of their impact they engaged in a campaign of misdirection. The idea of individual carbon footprints was popularized by oil giant BP, in conjunction with the public relations company Ogilvy & Mather. Many have likened these strategies to those of the tobacco industry; with senators such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren urging the Department of Justice to sue the fossil fuel industry on these grounds. Multiple state attorney generals have sued with similar arguments, such as Minnesota stating that companies “engaged in a public-relations campaign that was not only false, but also highly effective.”
When brainstorming solutions for our pollution concerns, we must hold those most responsible accountable. Fossil fuels are an incredibly lucrative industry and, while immoral, most of their decisions have been economically sound. When faced with growing climate restrictions in western powers, corporations moved production to countries with lax environmental regulations. This makes the former countries seem cleaner, when in reality the pollution is simply shuttled to a different point on the same planet.
Any industry will move towards profit, therefore it is the matter of economically incentivizing sustainability that makes the true difference. When trapped by profit motives we fail to recognize that there will be no economy without our environment—even money burns.
Frontlines of Climate Change
All the while, the most impacted communities lack the resources to address the various issues caused by reckless contamination. For example, Africa is likely the most polluted continent, yet they lack the resources to adequately collect data on a mass scale. These are issues that even powerful countries have trouble addressing—recall widespread PFAs—how do we expect less economically stable nations to cope?
A lack of infrastructure will also lead to a domino effect for nations facing natural disasters. When hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, a severe lack of quick support and infrastructure caused many unnecessary casualties. While there are no trends in hurricane frequency, warming seas do lead to more intense storms. How will Puerto Rico overcome increasingly powerful storms with their current foundations—or the Caribbean for that matter?
Pollution is a global issue that disproportionately affects certain groups, and that is a core attribute of our current systems.
Conclusion
Whether it is due to anthropogenic factors or planetary cycles, the climate is changing. These sorts of changes used to occur on timescales far beyond the human lifespan, but we are changing that as well. By the year 2100, humanity will be able to see how much we have averted or how much we have lost. But if we wish to continue debating past then, we must solve the issues facing us now, without half measures.
On this ever-politicized issue, we must be careful not to get lost in the constant disagreements, misinformation, and panic politics. Those who absolutely deny any changes are choosing to remain ignorant, while those who simply stoke climate panic are usually led by their own political agendas. This is the greatest threat of our generation, and we will not be able to address it without a clear mind and responsible discussion.
Finally, pollution has become a targeted practice dependent on power imbalances from imperial and racist histories. However, understanding a problem is the first step towards a solution. Current efforts from the Biden administration—such as cutting home energy consumption and standardizing electric cars—fail to acknowledge this aspect. The production of EV batteries often uses large amounts of water and involves the mining of extremely hazardous materials e.g. lithium and cobalt (often in Africa). Not to mention the electricity at charging stations is sourced from local power grids, which in the U.S. is often coal or gas based. Without a holistic analysis, such solutions can become ineffective and exacerbate current socio-economic hegemony.
By addressing current inequalities we can substantially combat pollution. We should be working with the most polluted nations to provide resources and improve their adaptability. Aside from regulating polluting industries, funding research initiatives and investing in local infrastructure are great ways to start counteracting the current damage. Meanwhile, powerful countries can address their own inequalities, while restructuring their energy systems to be sustainable. All the while we should be considering the demands of affected communities, because help that is not requested can be more damaging than helpful. Importantly, we must stop distracting ourselves with individual blame while corporations proceed with business as usual.
As long as we continue ignoring political and economic power imbalances, we produce half measures that often hurt more than they help. Equitability and environmental health are intrinsically linked, and our future depends on both.
Louisville Political Review 