In recent years the issues of environmental justice and equity have been raised within the environmental movement. Minority populations, and poor people in general, have produced persuasive data showing that they are far more likely to be exposed to environmental pollution from factories or waste disposal facilities than more affluent white people.One proposal that has been put forth in response to demand for environmental justice is to provide some form of reward to those who live in neighborhoods where exposure to environmental toxins is significantly higher than average. Would this be an ethical practice? What other steps might be taken to promote environmental equity in an ethical manner?
We do not think receiving an award for being more exposed to toxins than average would be an ethical practice. You should not be paid money for where you choose to live. Other steps that could be taken to provide environmental equity is to be informed on the amount of environmental toxins in your area before you choose to live there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At least one of the cases that identified minority populations as being at greater risk for exposure was in Louisiana. It was against a chemical plant near here, but I don't remember anything else. Please find some information, or an article about this and put the link here. (One person in the group can find the article and another can write a brief summary.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. People should not be paid to live in an area that could potentially harm them.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. That is just stupid that a person knows they are in harm but are so greedy that they continue to live there only for the money. Putting your life in danger that way is wrong and this is unethical of the officials to endanger people this way. If the toxin level is higher than normal, as in 90-95%, they should be forced to move. Also, I agree that a person should be firmly warned about toxins.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. People should be informed on how much exposure of environmental toxins are in the area they live in.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well. While rewarding people may sound like a nice thing to do, especially if they may need the money, it is entirely unethical. These people may not even know what they are entirely getting themselves into, or what the side effects may be. Even if the reward was enough to let families move away from the toxins, the reward probably wouldn't be paid to them in enough time so by then the families had already been exposed to enough toxins to produce side effects.
ReplyDeleteSome people cannot afford to live in unpolluted places. The reason they live in these places is because they are poor and places that are intoxicated with pollution are cheap. They simply cannot afford to live anywhere else.
ReplyDeletesja32836:
ReplyDeleteAlthough they may not be able to afford a home in unpolluted areas, they should not be rewarded for what they can/cannot afford. If they choose to live in a polluted area, they are exposing themselves to the risk. Noone else should have to pay them for their desision.
Here is a link to a series of articles (there are about 4, called Day 1, 2, 3, 4)about minorities in Louisiana:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nola.com/speced/unwelcome/
Here is a summary on the article i left a link for about a chemical plant in Louisiana:
ReplyDeleteA chemical plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana is causing homeowners near the plant to worry about their health. They believe that the plant is causing health problems. The poor and minority residents living close to the plant have suspicious levels of toxins in their bodies, and some have mysterious illnesses. There is no hard evidence to prove the homeowners right or wrong. This leaves the government at a standstill on deciding what to do about the issue. Some homeowners are fighting back by forcing a change in the way that the development of the plant shall continue.
I agree that giving people to live in that area was a bad choice on the scientists part, and that it is wrong in any case.
ReplyDeletei agree with you also. i think that letting people live in the area even though they knew it was toxic was just bad all around.
ReplyDelete