Pollution And Prejudice: The White Face Of Environmental Racism

While the top polluting companies are in the fossil fuel industry, there is a stark racial inequality in the US when it comes to air pollution. A study found that whites are mostly to blame for air pollution affecting blacks and Hispanics. White people enjoy a pollution advantage, bearing the burden of 17% less air pollution than is generated by their consumption. On the other hand, blacks and Hispanics experience a pollution burden, facing up to 63% more exposure than is caused by their consumption. This is due to the fact that black and Hispanic Americans tend to live in neighbourhoods with more pollution, and because they spend less money.

White people contribute more to air pollution

It is a sad reality that racial inequality persists in the United States, and this is reflected in the country's air pollution problem. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that racial and ethnic minorities are acutely vulnerable to air pollution due to the neighbourhoods in which they live. The study, which examined the period between 2003 and 2015, concluded that white people benefit from a "pollution advantage", bearing less burden of air pollution than their consumption levels would suggest. On the other hand, Blacks and Hispanics experience a "pollution burden", facing much higher exposure than their consumption levels would indicate. This disparity is caused by the different amounts of consumption, with White people spending more money on goods and services that contribute to air pollution.

This inequality is further exacerbated by the fact that neighbourhoods with higher minority populations tend to be located near major sources of pollution, such as oil refineries, chemical companies, and busy roadways. For example, in Richmond, California, Latinos, Blacks, and Asians make up 97% of the residents in North Richmond, an area with a high concentration of industrial sites and toxic waste sites. As a result, these communities suffer from higher rates of health problems, such as asthma, heart disease, and stroke, which are linked to air pollution exposure.

While the study focused on the impact of personal consumption on air pollution, it is important to recognise that corporate polluters play a significant role as well. The fossil fuel industry, in particular, has been identified as a major contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions, and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases by country in 2023 was China, followed by the United States. However, within the United States, the racial dynamics of pollution remain stark, with Whites contributing more to air pollution through their consumption patterns, while Blacks and Hispanics bear the brunt of the health consequences.

Addressing these inequities requires a multi-faceted approach. On the one hand, reducing the environmental impact of economic activity and consumption could help lessen the disparity. On the other hand, rethinking urban planning and transportation dependence could also play a role in ameliorating the issue. Additionally, holding companies accountable for their carbon emissions and lobbying efforts to delay climate change policies is crucial. By addressing both individual consumption patterns and corporate responsibility, we can strive towards a more equitable and sustainable future.

Racial minorities bear the burden of pollution

Several studies have found that racial minorities bear the burden of pollution, particularly in the United States. Research has shown that black and Hispanic Americans are exposed to higher levels of air pollution than their white counterparts, despite the fact that white Americans consume more of the goods and services that cause pollution. This phenomenon, known as "pollution inequity", is a result of systemic racism and housing policies that have pushed people of color and pollution together.

One study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, found that racial inequality in air pollution persisted between 2003 and 2015. The research, led by the University of Minnesota and the University of Washington, quantified the racial gap between who causes air pollution and who is most affected by it. It was found that white Americans benefit from a ""pollution advantage", experiencing approximately 17% less air pollution than is generated by their consumption. In contrast, black and Hispanic populations suffer from a "pollution burden", facing up to 63% more exposure than they cause through their consumption.

Another study, published in the journal PNAS, examined the link between consumption and air pollution exposure. It was found that air pollution is disproportionately caused by the consumption patterns of white Americans but disproportionately inhaled by black and Hispanic Americans. This study highlights the inherent unfairness of the situation, where those contributing less to the problem bear a greater burden.

The racial gap in pollution exposure is not simply a result of income disparities but is driven by race and ethnicity. People of color are exposed to higher levels of pollution from multiple source types, including industry, agriculture, vehicles, and construction. This unequal exposure has significant health implications, as pollution exposure is linked to a range of health problems, including cardiovascular issues, respiratory illnesses, and even birth defects.

Addressing this environmental injustice will require a range of measures, from rethinking urban planning and transportation dependence to making economic activity and consumption less polluting. By acknowledging the role of systemic racism in creating and perpetuating these disparities, policymakers can work towards creating more equitable and healthy environments for racial minorities who have long shouldered the burden of pollution.

Racial inequality in pollution exposure

Several studies have found that racial and ethnic minorities in the United States are exposed to higher levels of air pollution than whites, despite the fact that whites consume more of the goods and services that cause it. This disparity is not limited to low-income racial and ethnic minorities and persists regardless of region or income.

A 2019 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that, between 2003 and 2015, the air pollution that predominantly affected blacks and Hispanics was disproportionately caused by the white majority. The study concluded that white people enjoy a "pollution advantage", bearing the burden of 17% less air pollution than is generated by their consumption. On the other hand, blacks and Hispanics experience a "pollution burden", facing 56% and 63% more exposure, respectively, than is caused by their consumption.

Another study, published in Nature in 2022, found that racial and ethnic minorities and low-income groups in the United States are exposed to higher levels of fine particulate pollution (PM2.5). The researchers linked demographic data from the US Census Bureau and American Community Survey for the years 2000 through 2016 with US-wide PM2.5 data and found stark disparities in exposure across racial/ethnic and income groups. They also found that relative disparities in exposure to PM2.5 in relation to safety standards have been increasing over time among these groups.

A 2012 study found that non-Hispanic blacks, unemployed people, and those with low income or low education were more likely to live in areas with higher exposures to particle pollution. Similarly, a 2008 study of Washington, DC, found that areas with higher Medicaid enrollment had poorer air quality and higher rates of asthma. A 2016 study of New Jersey residents found that the risk of dying early from long-term exposure to particle pollution was higher in communities with larger African American populations, lower home values, and lower median income.

The disparities in pollution exposure among racial and ethnic minorities are a result of systemic racism and decades of residential segregation. As a result of these factors, people of color and pollution have been pushed together, leading to environmental injustice and unequal health outcomes.

Pollution and poverty among people of colour

While the companies that pollute the most are in the fossil fuel industry, the impact of their actions disproportionately affects people of colour. A 2019 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that racial inequality persisted between 2003 and 2015, with whites being mostly to blame for air pollution affecting blacks and Hispanics. The study concluded that white people enjoy a "pollution advantage", bearing the burden of 17% less air pollution than is generated by their consumption. On the other hand, black and Hispanic people experience a "pollution burden", facing 56% and 63% more exposure, respectively, than is caused by their consumption.

This disparity is due to several factors, including racism, class bias, housing market dynamics, and land costs. Pollution sources tend to be located near disadvantaged communities, increasing exposure to harmful pollutants. Low-income residents seeking affordable homes end up living in areas with high levels of pollution, sharing a fence line with polluting businesses and industrial sources. For example, in Richmond, California, residents live in the shadow of an oil refinery and complain of a lack of paved streets, lighting, and basic services. The median income in North Richmond in 2010 was less than half of that of Contra Costa County.

The health effects of pollution are also more severe for people of colour. Decades of toxic emissions from industries may be taking a toll on residents' health, with researchers noting a potential link between toxic fumes and violence in the community. Richmond's estimated cancer risk is higher than nearby cities, based on a combination of pollution exposures and demographic factors. Studies have found a greater risk of premature death for communities with higher African American populations, higher unemployment, or higher use of public transportation. Additionally, children in poorer neighbourhoods are more likely to be exposed to lead, industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and other contaminants, and may be more biologically susceptible to pollutants.

The burden of air pollution is not evenly shared, and people of colour and low-income communities are often among those who face higher exposure to pollutants and more severe health consequences. This environmental injustice reflects the stark racial inequalities present in American life, with racial and ethnic minorities being acutely vulnerable to air pollution due to the neighbourhoods in which they live.

Companies that pollute receive investment

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America found that racial inequality persisted between 2003 and 2015, with white people being the main contributors to air pollution affecting minorities. The study concluded that white people enjoyed a "pollution advantage", bearing less air pollution than is generated by their consumption, while minorities faced more exposure than is caused by their consumption. This is due to minorities tending to live in more polluted neighbourhoods.

Despite the existence of such inequalities, polluting companies, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry, continue to attract a lot of investment. A Carbon Tracker study in 2015 found that fossil fuel companies risked wasting over $2 trillion in the coming decade by pursuing projects that could become worthless due to international action on climate change and advances in renewable energy. However, the five biggest oil and gas companies still spent $200 million lobbying to delay, control, or block policies addressing climate change. These companies have been accused of having their "hand on the throttle", determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels.

There has been some investor backlash against polluting companies, with significant investment funds refusing to support "dirty firms". However, the energy sector is changing rapidly, and investors who continue to invest in fossil fuels may find themselves stranded as the transition to renewable energy gains momentum. Experts warn that if fossil fuel extraction continues at the current rate, global temperatures could rise by up to 4°C, leading to possible species extinction and threats to world food production.

To address climate change effectively, a shift in focus is necessary. Instead of solely emphasizing individual responsibility, accountability should be demanded from the companies that bear the most responsibility for carbon emissions. By recognizing the role of companies and investors in tackling climate change, we can work towards a more sustainable future.

Frequently asked questions