Environmental racism, ecological racism, or ecological apartheid refers to the unequal treatment that leads to harmful environmental effects, such as landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste disposal, which often affect communities of color more than others. This issue is also linked to extractivism, a practice that places the environmental costs of mining, oil drilling, and large-scale farming on Indigenous people and poorer nations where many people of color live.
Environmental racism describes how marginalized communities, especially those of color, face higher risks from pollution, environmental damage, and unsafe conditions. These problems are often tied to policies made by governments, both in the United States and other countries, and show how structural racism can create unequal health outcomes. It is also important to understand how environmental racism overlaps with sexism, as women and gender minority groups in marginalized communities often face even greater challenges due to existing health inequalities. In the United States, some communities are repeatedly exposed to pollution, but the government often ignores these issues. According to Robert D. Bullard, known as the father of environmental justice, environmental rules do not protect everyone equally. People of color, including African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans, are more likely to suffer from harmful chemicals in their workplaces and neighborhoods.
To address this, it is important to study how race and economic status connect to environmental injustice, as well as the history of these issues and their effects. Looking into the causes, impacts, government actions, community efforts, and possible solutions can help create fairer environmental policies.
Efforts to fight environmental racism have led to the environmental justice movement, which began in the United States and other countries during the 1970s and 1980s. This issue can affect both minority groups and majority groups, as seen in South Africa, where apartheid caused serious environmental harm to Black people. Globally, the trade of waste often harms poorer countries where many people of color live. It also affects Indigenous groups, who are especially vulnerable to pollution. Environmental racism is a type of institutional racism, as seen in Russia, where hazardous waste is more likely to be placed in communities of color. This form of inequality means that people in communities of color and low-income areas face greater risks from pollution and the health problems it causes.
History
The term "environmental racism" was first used in 1982 by Benjamin Chavis, who was then the executive director of the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice. During a speech against placing dangerous polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste in a landfill in Warren County, North Carolina, Chavis explained the term as the unfair treatment of people based on race when it comes to environmental dangers.
This idea helped start the environmental justice movement in the 1970s and 1980s, which was influenced by earlier civil rights efforts. Local groups and campaigns highlighted how environmental racism was ignored in decision-making and stressed the need for input from minority communities. While environmental racism was closely linked to the environmental justice movement at first, the term has become less connected over time. After the Warren County events, the UCC and the U.S. General Accounting Office released reports showing that hazardous waste sites were more likely to be found in poor neighborhoods with many minority residents. Chavis and Dr. Robert D. Bullard pointed out that government and corporate policies created unfair practices, such as redlining, zoning, and planning that ignored race. People faced environmental racism because of their low income, limited political power, and lack of ability to move to safer areas.
Dr. Bullard later expanded the definition of environmental racism, explaining that unfair treatment happens on a large scale through rules, policies, and systems that affect how the environment is planned and managed. These unfair practices increase the risk of harm from pollution and reduce access to healthcare for people of color.
Government agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have often failed to protect people of color from pollution and harmful industrial activities. This failure is clear in the higher levels of pollution found in communities of color. For example, African American and Latino neighborhoods have more pollution than mostly white areas. Between 1992 and 2003, community groups in California, Michigan, Texas, Alabama, and New Mexico filed lawsuits against the EPA. In 2015, these communities tried again but received only basic investigations that did not lead to real change.
In Los Angeles, more than 71% of African Americans and 50% of Latinos live in areas with the worst air quality, while only 34% of white residents do. Across the country, many people of color live in areas with poor air quality and face more health problems linked to pollution.
Although the term "environmental racism" began in the United States, it also happens globally. Studies show that when developed countries strengthened environmental laws, companies moved their waste to less developed countries. These countries often have weaker rules and become places where pollution is allowed to grow.
Causes
Environmental racism is influenced by four main factors: limited access to affordable land, limited political influence, limited ability to move, and poverty. Corporations and government groups often seek land that is inexpensive. Because of this, communities that lack the ability to resist these groups or influence political decisions often cannot negotiate fair prices. Communities with limited opportunities to move are unable to leave areas with harmful conditions. Additionally, communities with less financial resources struggle to take action to protect themselves or participate in political decisions. Chavis identified five categories of environmental racism: unequal treatment in environmental policies, unfair enforcement of rules, intentionally placing hazardous waste sites in minority communities, allowing dangerous pollutants in minority areas without proper oversight, and excluding people of color from leadership roles in environmental matters.
Minority communities often lack the money, resources, or political representation needed to oppose the placement of hazardous waste sites. These facilities, known as locally unwanted land uses (LULUs), may benefit the broader community but often harm the quality of life for minority groups. Some neighborhoods depend on the economic opportunities these sites provide and may avoid opposing their placement to avoid losing jobs. Controversial projects are also less likely to be built in non-minority areas where people are more likely to organize and successfully resist such projects. In cities in the Global North, suburbanization and gentrification create patterns of environmental racism. For example, when white residents move away from industrial areas to safer, cleaner suburbs, minority communities are left in inner-city areas near polluted industrial zones. These areas often have high unemployment rates and fewer investments in improvement, leading to poor economic conditions and reinforcing racial inequality. Developers may also choose to build hazardous waste sites in areas with lower property values because it reduces their costs.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a method used to compare the financial costs and benefits of a project. In environmental CBA, the value of intangible benefits, such as clean air and water, is estimated by how much people are willing to pay for them. This method can contribute to environmental racism by valuing environmental resources based on how much society can afford to pay. When people can pay more for clean water or air, their contributions benefit society more than when people cannot afford these resources, which can place a greater burden on poor communities. This can lead to the unfair placement of hazardous waste sites in areas with more low-income or minority households. This type of economic evaluation can worsen environmental racism by lowering property values in these communities. Additionally, environmental gentrification can occur when efforts to clean up polluted areas or create green spaces in low-income or minority neighborhoods lead to rising home prices. This often results in higher-income, often white, residents moving into these areas, displacing original residents despite the intention to improve health and environmental justice.
Fossil fuel racism
Fossil fuels are connected to problems such as climate change, racial injustice, and public health issues. The process of using fossil fuels includes steps like extracting them from the ground, refining them, transporting them, and burning them. Each of these steps causes pollution and releases greenhouse gases into the air.
The harm caused by fossil fuel processing affects some communities more than others. Communities of color and those with lower incomes often face greater risks than white or wealthier communities. These groups deal with health problems caused by polluted air and water, as well as dangers from climate change. These areas are sometimes called "sacrifice zones," where racial discrimination and the fossil fuel industry work together to create unfair conditions. A study by Energy Research & Social Science explains that "fossil fuel racism" happens when systemic racism allows the fossil fuel industry to avoid paying for the pollution costs by placing them on communities of color.
Understanding fossil fuel racism helps people see how unfair systems and rules cause these problems. Many climate policies do not fix racial inequalities or focus on how fossil fuels harm public health. There is a strong need for political and policy changes to address the unfairness caused by the production and use of fossil fuels.
Impacts on health
Environmental racism harms the health of communities living in poor environmental conditions. Health problems can happen because of exposure to harmful chemicals in landfills and rivers. These chemicals can also slow or harm brain development.
The animal protection group In Defense of Animals says that large-scale farming of animals harms the health of nearby communities. They believe that waste from these farms creates harmful gases like hydrogen sulfide and pollutes local water supplies. This pollution can lead to more miscarriages, birth defects, and disease outbreaks. These farms are often located in low-income areas and communities of color. Other dangers include exposure to pesticides, chemical runoff, and air pollution. Poor cleanliness in farming areas and chemical exposure can also harm agricultural workers, who are often people of color.
The southeastern part of the United States has had a lot of pollution, and minority communities have suffered the most from these effects. Many people have died or are sick from pollution near coal plants in places like Detroit, Memphis, and Kansas City. In Tennessee and West Virginia, people often breathe in toxic ash from mining activities in the mountains. Droughts, floods, and the loss of land and clean air affect the health and safety of people living near these areas. Communities of color and low-income groups usually face these problems most directly. Similar issues happen in other parts of the world. For example, Desmond D'Sa’s work focused on communities in South Durban, where polluting industries harm people who were moved against their will during Apartheid.
Environmental racism worsens health differences among groups that are already struggling. People who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC) face more harm from environmental dangers and their effects on health. For example, Black children are still more likely to be exposed to lead than children from other racial groups. This leads to higher amounts of harmful chemicals like lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, and phthalates in their bodies.
Systemic racism in health research and studies causes the experiences of BIPOC people to be ignored. This leads to fewer resources and opportunities for research on their health issues. For example, studies about sperm health mostly focus on White men, even though men of color face more exposure to harmful chemicals. This lack of inclusion in research makes health differences worse and causes distrust in medical research among BIPOC communities. Systemic racism in research also limits the ability to create solutions that can help reduce health problems caused by the environment.
Reducing environmental racism
Activists are asking for "more participatory and citizen-centered ideas about justice." The environmental justice (EJ) movement and climate justice (CJ) movement work to address environmental racism by raising awareness and making changes so that people who are often overlooked, such as those in poor or minority communities, are not unfairly harmed by climate change or pollution. According to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, one possible solution is the precautionary principle. This principle says that if there is a risk of serious or lasting harm, we should not wait for full scientific proof to take action to protect the environment. Under this rule, the person or group planning a risky activity must prove it is safe. Environmental justice activists also stress the importance of reducing waste, which helps lower the overall harm and reduce methane emissions, which contribute to climate change.
During wartime, environmental racism often happens in ways that the public later learns about through reports. For example, Friends of the Earth International's Environmental Nakba report highlights environmental racism in the Gaza Strip during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some Israeli actions include cutting off water supplies to Palestinian refugee camps for three days and destroying farms.
Studies have shown how to change rules and stop environmental racism. In a study by Daum, Stoler, and Grant on e-waste management in Accra, Ghana, the researchers say it is important to work with groups like recycling companies, local communities, and scrap metal traders. They suggest this is more effective than rules like banning burning or buy-back programs, which have not worked well.
Environmental justice scholars, such as Laura Pulido, who is a professor at the University of Oregon, and David Pellow, who is a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, say that understanding environmental racism as a result of long-standing systems of racial inequality is important. They argue that white supremacy continues to influence how people relate to nature and labor.
Current political ideas about solving environmental racism and justice are moving toward using procedural justice. Procedural justice means making decisions in a fair and open way, especially when deciding how to share resources or resolve disagreements. It requires all people involved to have a chance to speak and share their ideas. This approach focuses on including everyone in the decision-making process, not just the final results. For environmental justice, this helps prevent powerful groups, such as corrupt governments or companies, from controlling decisions and gives more power to people directly affected.
Activism can take many forms. One way is through group protests or demonstrations, which can happen locally or globally. In places where activists believe government action can help, groups and individuals may work directly with political leaders. Many activists and groups also form partnerships with other groups or countries to increase their influence.
In Canada, Indigenous women have led many movements against environmental racism. One important example is the Native Women's Association of Canada's (NWAC) Sisters in Spirit Initiative. This program creates reports about the deaths and disappearances of Indigenous women to raise awareness and encourage action from governments and society. Even though the Canadian government stopped funding this initiative in 2010, NWAC continues to support Indigenous women, Two-Spirit people, and LGBTQ+ communities. Other Indigenous movements focus on healing through spiritual practices and traditional ways of life to fight against systems that cause environmental racism. Activists and Indigenous groups also use legal methods, such as discussing treaties or laws against violence, but they say these efforts are not enough because some voices are ignored and governments do not respect Indigenous rights.
Some scientists and economists have studied the idea of Environmental Reparations, which means giving money to people who are harmed by harmful industries. This could include people living near factories, victims of natural disasters, or climate refugees who leave their homes because of dangerous conditions. Reparations might involve direct payments, funding for cleaning up polluted areas, buying air monitors for poor neighborhoods, or investing in public transportation to reduce pollution.
The export of dangerous waste to other countries is a growing problem. Between 1989 and 1994, about 2,611 metric tons of hazardous waste was sent from rich countries to poorer ones. In response, two international agreements were made. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) said the Basel Convention, created in 1989, did not stop all waste movement. In 1991, the Pan-African Conference on Environmental and Sustainable Development passed the Bamako Convention, which banned all hazardous waste from entering Africa. In 1995, the G-77 nations helped change the Basel Convention to stop rich countries from sending waste to other countries. In 1988, the OAU declared toxic waste dumping a "crime against Africa and the African people." Soon after, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) passed a rule that could lead to life imprisonment for people caught dumping toxic waste.
Globalization and international agreements have created new opportunities for environmental racism. For example, the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) brought US-owned factories to Mexico, where toxic waste was left in the Colonia Chilpancingo community. Activists had to push the Mexican government to clean it up.
Environmental justice movements have become an important part of global meetings and discussions.
Examples by region
From 1956 to 2006, up to 1.5 million tons of oil were spilled in the Niger Delta, which is 50 times the amount spilled during the Exxon Valdez disaster. Indigenous people in the region have lost their jobs and sources of income because of these environmental problems, but they have not received any benefits from the large amounts of oil taken from their land. Environmental conflicts have made existing problems in the Niger Delta worse.
Burning of harmful waste and pollution in the air are issues in more developed areas.
The Ogoni people, who are native to Nigeria’s oil-rich Delta region, have protested the harmful effects of Shell Oil’s drilling and have spoken out against human rights abuses by the Nigerian government and Shell. Their international efforts grew stronger after nine Ogoni activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed in 1995. Ken Saro-Wiwa was a leader of the nonviolent Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP).
Studies by organizations worldwide have shown that the mining industry can harm the health of people and communities. Living near mining operations can lead to problems like pregnancy complications, mental health issues, and different types of cancer. During the Apartheid period in South Africa, mining expanded quickly because there were no strong environmental rules. Communities where mining happens often have high levels of poverty and unemployment. In these areas, people often disagree about whether the economic benefits of mining are worth the health risks. Mining companies sometimes use these disagreements to their advantage. In South Africa, mining companies are closely connected to the national government, which gives them more power and keeps local people from being involved in decisions. This lack of involvement has led to long-term problems, with poor South Africans facing the worst effects of environmental damage caused by mining. Some say that to address environmental racism and create fairness, it is important to examine the systems of power, social relationships, and cultural factors that cause these issues.
The term "energy poverty" describes a lack of access to clean, reliable, and affordable energy needed for daily life and development. Many communities in South Africa experience energy poverty. In South Africa, women often take care of both their homes and their communities. Those in poor areas face extra challenges, including discrimination based on gender, race, and class. Because of this, women—who use public resources the most—are often not included in decisions about how those resources are managed. Energy poverty forces women to use expensive and harmful energy sources, which can hurt their health and the environment. To help, some renewable energy programs in South Africa focus on these communities and women.
According to a study titled "Environmental Injustice and Electronic Waste in Ghana: Challenges and Recommendations," the United Nations estimates that about 57.4 million metric tons of e-waste were created worldwide in 2021. Areas where e-waste is dumped are called "sacrifice zones," where people suffer from pollution, toxic exposure, and damaged ecosystems. These areas often affect marginalized groups. The movement of dangerous waste from wealthy countries in the "Global North" to poorer countries in the "Global South" is called "toxic colonialism," because it is linked to a long history of colonization and imperialism by Western nations.
Although Africa produces little e-waste, it is a major destination for e-waste from developed countries. In 2019, Ghana and Nigeria received 77% of e-waste from England and Wales. The Agbogbloshie e-waste site in Ghana has gained international attention. Located in Accra, it is one of the largest and most dangerous e-waste dumps in the world. Broken electronics are often sent there illegally, disguised as "second-hand goods." Once there, the items are taken apart and burned to recover valuable metals, releasing harmful chemicals into the air, soil, and water. While this work provides little income for poor people, it harms the environment, public health, and Ghana’s reputation. Burning releases heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium, as well as dangerous chemicals like dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Ghana receives millions of tons of e-waste each year, while Lagos and Nigeria receive between 18,300 and 60,000 metric tons. This has created health problems and raised concerns about fairness in environmental treatment. According to the study, the Agbogbloshie site was destroyed by the Ghanaian government in July 2021. However, new informal e-waste recycling sites similar to Agbogbloshie have appeared in Accra and nearby cities. These sites are hard to control because poor countries often lack the resources to refuse imported waste or manage it properly.
Between the mid-1990s and 2001, about 50 to 80% of electronics collected for recycling in the western United States were sent overseas, mostly to China and Southeast Asia. This process is profitable because of a large workforce, low wages, and weak environmental rules.
Guiyu, China, is one of the largest e-waste recycling sites in the world. Discarded electronics are piled near rivers and in compounds, where chemicals like cadmium, copper, lead, and PBDEs pollute the water. In 2001, water samples from the Lianjiang River showed lead levels 190 times higher than safety standards set by the World Health Organization. Despite this, residents continue to use the polluted water because it is cheaper than buying clean water. Reports show that nearly 80% of children in Guiyu have lead poisoning. Before becoming an e-waste hub, Guiyu was mostly farmland. Farming has been replaced by work in recycling electronics. Studies by Western media, Chinese universities, and NGOs describe the dangerous conditions faced by workers in this industry.