>>Industrialization has brought a number of benefits
to global society, but it has also come with
tremendous ecological and biological costs.
The soil we till, the water we drink
and the air we breathe are increasingly contaminated
with the toxic by-products of industrial production.
Every day we come into contact with endocrine
disrupters, neurotoxins, carcinogens, hormones
and a variety of other contaminants whose long
term biological effects aren't even known.
In the United States, tens of thousands of chemicals
are used in commercial applications, but only
a small fraction of them have been studied by the EPA.
Although no one can completely shield themselves
from this reality, exposure to toxic substances
is not evenly distributed.
Rather, uneven levels of exposure reflect broader
patterns of social stratification with respect
to class, gender, race and geo-politics.
As sociologist Ulrich Beck has observed,
wealth accumulates at the top of the socio-economic
ladder and risk's at the bottom.
Since the 1960's, concerns over toxic pollution
have been at the heart of environmental movements
around the world.
In the United States, Europe and other highly
industrialized societies, these movements have
succeeded in pushing through environmental
regulations such as The Clean Air Act in the U.S.
that have reduced certain forms of pollution.
Unfortunately, though, just as the costs
and benefits of industrial production are not shared
equally, the benefits of these regulations are
uneven in their application.
At the global scale, the de-regulation of trade
has enabled the outsourcing and polluting
industries to countries like China, that have
lower wages and weaker regulations.
Perhaps you've seen the images of dense smog in Beijing,
or the hyper-colored rivers in the countryside.
Some of that pollution is generated by industrial
production that serves domestic demand, but much
of it results from the manufacture of products for export.
In addition, developing countries often import toxic waste
from wealthier countries where disposal is more
strictly regulated and therefore more expensive.
To use the language of economics, many of the environmental
costs of U.S. consumer society are being externalized
to China and other developing countries.
We also see the effects of this unevenness
when disaster strikes.
From the calamitous gas leak in Bhopal, India
to the widespread petroleum contamination
in the Ecuadorian Amazon, when U.S. based
corporations are involved in environmental disasters
abroad, they are rarely held to the same level
of accountability that they would face
for similar incidents here.
Multi-national corporations employ sophisticated
legal maneuvers to shield themselves from liability
and to lobby for favorable provisions
and free trade agreements.
It's important to bear in mind that this pattern
exists not just between countries, but also within them.
In the United States, studies have shown that
people of color are much more likely than whites
to live near toxic facilities,
and, as the scandal over lead pollution
in the waters of Flint, Michigan has made clear,
marginalized communities are often neglected by regulators.
Earlier I mentioned that toxic pollution has been a
major concern of environmental movements in the
United States and that these movements have succeeded
in advocating for more stringent environmental regulations.
Critics, however, have observed that these movements
have primarily represented the interests of middle
class and elite whites.
This, they argue, has led to a "not in my backyard"
or NIMBY phenomenon, whereby privileged communities
are increasingly able to protect themselves
from toxic exposure leaving less privileged communities
to bear that exposure instead.
Activists working under the banner of environmental
justice have formed a parallel movement that explicitly
links social inequality to environmental risk.
Since its origins among African-American activists
working in the U.S. south, environmental justice
has become a global call to action for those who
seek greater social equity as a pre-requisite
for addressing environmental problems that exist
both within national boundaries and between them.
As a result, questions of justice and equity
are increasingly central to environmental debates
whether at the level of polluted neighborhoods
or the global climate.
Environmental scholar Rob Nixon has coined the term
"slow violence" to describe the cumulative health
effects that toxic pollution has on many
marginalized communities.
Our materials for this week will confront us with examples
of slow violence from different parts of the world.
As you consider these examples, focus on how
geo-political boundaries, socio-economic structures
and racial inequalities shape people's
exposure to toxics,
on how polluters avoid accountability
and activists demand it,
and how social policies and environmental policies
go hand in hand.
What sorts of policies, both nationally
and internationally could address unevenness
and protections from toxic pollution?