Social Stratification of Pollution Across America: Analysis and Economic Perspectives By: William Nichols Abstract: The poor and minorities in our society experience a disproportionate amount of pollution in their neighborhoods and homes. The following work defines and analyzes the environmental justice movement, the types of pollution with which these people live, the evidence and reasons why they experience more pollution, and an economic perspective of the entire situation. The purpose of this essay is not to analyze whether this is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather to provide an economic and ethical interpretation of the issues. Main work: Many studies have been conducted about the reasons why highly polluting industries tend to be located more frequently in low income and minority neighborhoods across the United States.1 The research of census data and other gross economic studies have proven that, in general, low income neighborhoods experience more of all forms of pollution (including air and water pollution, as well as toxic waste pollution) than do neighborhoods that maintain higher levels of income (Morello-Frosch, 478). Further, studies have also proven that while holding income constant, minority neighborhoods (specifically African American and Hispanic) experience higher levels of pollution than non-Hispanic, white neighborhoods (Bullard and Wright, 72). There are many reasons that have contributed to this situation in the United States today including housing market discrimination, local job opportunities for the low income and minority families, environmental regulations, and the simple fact that land near polluting industries is cheap compared to environmentally sound areas. The following will discuss these reasons in detail and provide various perspectives on the ethics of this situation experienced by millions of people across the nation. It is important to understand the various types of pollution experienced by minority and low income neighborhoods. Three main forms of pollution exist in these areas: air 1 Refer to the articles listed in Works Cited by the following: Bullard, Bullard and Wright, Dryzek, Morello-Frosch, Pastor, Pellow, Schill and Watcher, and Willers.pollution, water pollution, and hazardous waste. Rachel Morello-Frosch, professor of Health and Human Sciences at San Francisco State University, writes, “Pollution sources are not simply limited to large industrial manufacturing facilities, but also include transportation corridors as well as smaller manufacturing and service firms that are an integral part of urban systems” (Morello-Frosch, 485). Further, the neighborhoods in question assume a disproportionately large part of the solid and liquid waste treatment facilities across the nation. These incinerators and treatment plants impose various air and water pollutants on the communities in which they are located. Another siting issue facing minority and low income neighborhoods is the increasingly large presence of the nation’s landfills. According to Bullard and Wright, “Finding suitable sites for municipal landfills has also become a critical problem nationwide mainly because people are reluctant about living near a facility where garbage is dumped. The standard public reaction has been ‘not in my neighborhood’” (Bullard and Wright, 74). Both private and government-run waste disposal companies have elected to locate an increasing number of their landfills near neighborhoods with predominantly minority and low income residents. Before continuing onto the evidence that supports the assertions above, it is necessary to define some terms. Environmental racism is defined as, “Any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color” (Bullard, 497). There is a distinction between this and environmental classism which applies to low income families as opposed to race. The following discusses evidence of environmental racism and classism occurring and the reasons why they occur. Studies in neighborhoods across the nation have analyzed proximity to emission sources, exposure to polluting substances in the air and water, and differences in regulatory enforcement across regions. Research has shown that, “Much of theevidence points to a pattern of disproportionate exposure to toxics and associated health risks among communities of color and the poor, with racial differences often persisting across economic strata” (Morello-Frosch, 478). Some factors that contribute to this reality include job limitations, household income, discriminatory housing development policies, and land prices. The minority and low income families that experience the brunt of the pollution in this country have become economically dependant on the industries that pollute their neighborhoods because many rely on the income to support their families (Bullard and Wright, 71). Further, white collar workers, including investors and managers, make substantially more money because of their higher marginal product. This enables them to move away from the factory, landfill, or whatever polluting industry for which they work. Real estate discrimination also played a large role in the segregation of minority and low income families during the last half of the 20th Century. “While mediating the national and international capital flows that have fueled the growth of large cities in the USA, the banking system long discouraged the infusion of credit to communities of color through ‘redlining’ practices” (Morello-Frosch, 486). The legal definition of ‘redlining’ is, “A discriminatory practice whereby lending institutions refuse to make mortgage loans, regardless of an applicant's credit history, on properties in particular areas in which conditions are allegedly deteriorating” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law). This does not occur very often at the present time because of the Equal Opportunity Housing Act that reformed mortgages within the banking system; however, the effects of years of housing discrimination can still be seen today. Some propose that even though many workers during the 1970s and 1980s had lucrative jobs in their respective industries enabling them to move away from the polluting industry, discrimination in the housing markets ensured that they would remain in the highly polluted