Peter Wenz, "Just Garbage"
January 27, 2005

I. INTRODUCTORY
Environmental justice asks whether our current distributions of env. hazards are just
Env. hazards: Include toxic chemicals in factories, toxic herbicides/pesticides in agriculture, radiation from uranium mining, lead from paint in older buildings, illegally dumped toxic wastes, legally stored toxic wastes, air pollution, etc.
- Lead, arsenic and cadmium near homes of children can result in mental retardation

Navaho teens exposed to radiation from uranium mine tailings have reproductive organ cancer 17 times greater than national average
EPA estimates that toxic air pollution in South Chicago increases cancer risk 100 to 1000 times
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma related to living near stone, clay, and glass industries
Leukemia related to living near chemical/petroleum plants
In general, cancer rates higher near industries that use toxic substances and discard them nearby

What is env. racism? Practices that expose racial minorities and people of color to disproportionate shares of env. hazards

This is the current practice in this country (and around the world)

II. DEFENSE OF CURRENT PRACTICE OF DISTRIBUTING ENV. HAZARDS TO RACIAL MINORITIES: IT'S ECONOMIC, NOT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Because economic factors and not racial discrimination accounts for disproportionate impacts on nonwhites, current practices are neither racist nor morally objectionable.

This defense relies on the Doctrine of Double Effect:

An effect that would normally be wrong to cause is permissibly caused if it is an "unintended byproduct" of a morally justifiable effect you intend to cause
"An effect whose production is usually blameworthy becomes blameless when it is incidental to-though predictably conjoined with-production of another effect whose production is morally justified"
Hysterectomy/abortion example: Pregnant woman has uterine cancer. A commonly accepted treatment for cancer of the uterus is removal of the uterus. This will predictably end the pregnancy (as would abortion). Roman Catholic scholars usually consider abortion blameworthy but consider this instance blameless because it is merely incidental to the hysterectomy, which is a morally justified method to treat cancer of the uterus.

Because the hysterectomy would be performed in absence of pregnancy, the abortion effect is produced neither as an end in itself, nor as a means to reach the desired end, which is the cure of cancer

Racial effects of toxic waste sitings are blameless because they are unintended side-effects (of siting env. hazards in poor communities)

They are neither sought as ends in themselves nor as means to reach a desired goal
Merely predictable side effects of economic and political practices that disproportionally expose poor people to toxic substances
Locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) (e.g., buried toxic wastes) lowers property values, people who can afford to move do so and are replaced by predominately poor who can't afford to live in more desirable areas
Nonwhites are disproportionately burdened due primarily to poverty, not racism
An important legal defense against charge of racism, for racism is illegal in U.S., while economic discrimination is permitted; so if nonwhites disproportionately exposed merely because they are poor, no legal remedies available

III. WENZ REJECTS THIS DEFENSE: It is still unjust for racial minorities to suffer disproportionate env. hazards, even if it is accounted for by economics and not race

It is wrong /unjust for the poor to suffer disproportionate env. hazards

Even if racism plays no part in disproportionate exposure of nonwhites to env. hazards and this can be accounted for solely by economic reasons, justice still requires alternation of practice (it is still wrong/unjust)

Disanalogy with hysterectomy case: Unlike the hysterectomy case where the intended effect is morally permissible (prevent cancer), it is not morally permissible (because it is unjust) to place disproportionate env. hazards on poor people

This violates principles of distributive justice

Thus current practices of disproportionately exposing nonwhites to toxic substances are not justified even if this is simply an unintended by product (incidental) of the disproportionate exposure of poor people to env. toxins (for that is unjust too).
But what if the poor are targeted not because they are poor but because economic reasons suggest this is a better policy? Just as this is not intentional discrimination against the non-whites, it is not intentional discrimination against the poor

NED'S SUMMARY OF WENZ'S RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC REPLY TO CHARGES OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

Although it is true that nonwhites suffer disproportionate exposure to env. hazards, it is alleged that this is not wrong because it is not based on morally wrong racial discrimination but on morally permissible economic discrimination
Wenz argues that targeting the poor with a disproportionate amount of env. hazards (economic discrimination) is wrong (because unjust), and thus the above response to env. racism fails

Another response would be to reject doctrine of double effect

Wenz's argument seems to accept doctrine of double effect (okay to cause an effect if it is an unintended by-product of some morally legitimate effect you intend to cause)
But one could reject this doctrine and this would provide another reason to criticize the economic defense to env. racism: Okay you don't intend to heap all the env. toxins on nonwhites, but you fully realize that is the result of your actions and thus you are morally responsible for that outcome as well.

IV. PRINCIPLE OF COMMENSURATE BURDENS AND BENEFITS: Those who derive the benefits should sustain commensurate burdens

Unacceptable interpretation: The more benefit you get the more burdens you get

This seems wrong, for if the benefits don't involve any burdens, why should those who benefit get unrelated burdens?
Commensurate is the wrong word: rather the benefits and burdens should go together; The idea is that one ought to suffer the consequences of one's actions; suffering the negative effects caused by one's actions (whether or not they produce benefits)
Perhaps Wenz's idea is that the benefits and burdens all go into and come from a social pot from which we can't tease out the specific effects of each one's action

Principle of commensuration between benefits and burdens is not only moral principle governing distributive justice and it may not be most important, but it is basic

People who benefit from a harmful activity should be the ones suffering that harm

And if many people are benefiting from that harmful activity, those among them who benefit more, should receive more of the harm

Examples concerning disputes about commensurate burdens and benefits:

Work (a burden) due a benefit (money
- People on welfare criticized for receiving modest amounts of taxpayer money w/o shouldering the burdens of work
Burdens of monetary payment and tort liability associated with benefits of ownership

Grumblings that many professional athletes & corp executives are overpaid

Though they shoulder the work, their benefits are disproportionate to their burdens
Here is an example of commensurate ben/burdens irrespective of who produced them (the unacceptable interpretation above)

Exceptions (and required justifications): That these exceptions require justification, shows that we accept idea that people who derive benefits should shoulder commensurate burdens

People can inherit money w/o working (Justification: Inheriting w/o work is justified because that is a benefit owed to those who want to give their wealth to their offspring)
Use of taxpayer money to protect public from hazards associated with use of private property (e.g., revamping of superfund legislation, taxpayer pays instead of polluter pays) disassociates benefits of ownership from burden of tort liability

Justification: Using taxpayer money to protect public from dangerous private property is justified as a way to encourage private industry /commerce (which is supposed increases public wealth)
Also protects victims in cases where private owners become bankrupt (Times Beach Missouri, where gove bought homes made worthless due to dioxin pollution and responsible company was bankrupt)

Government supports people who are unemployed (benefit of money is dissociated from burden of work)

Applying the principle of commensurate benefits and burdens to env. justice we get the following principle

The burdens of ill health associated with env. hazards should be related to the benefits derived from the processes and products that create these hazards

Here he is using the interpretation that I gave above-causally related-not just proportionate in extent

V. CONSUMERISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TOXIC HAZARDS

To assess the justice of the current distribution of env. hazards, the benefits of their generation must be considered

Toxic wastes come from many manufacturing processes: Paints, solvents, plastics, petrochemical based materials, in our homes, refrigerators, clothing, plumbing, garbage pails, etc.

Toxins released into our env. in greater quantities than ever before because we have a consumer-oriented society, where acquisition, use, disposal of individually owned items is greatly desired

Wenz's diagnosis of our consumer society

We associate $ value of the items at our disposal with our standard of living
Assume higher standard of living (more consumption) is a better life
Toxic wastes are produced as byproducts of pursuit of what our country considers valuable: consumption of material goods
Our economy requires increased consumer demand to keep people working (to produce for that demand)
At Christmas, people worried that shoppers won't buy enough; Patriotic duty after Sept. 11, to shop keep economy going....
If there is not enough demand, people put out of work
Demand must increase (and not hold steady) as improved labor efficiency (same output with less labor) requires fewer workers to produce desired objects
Need more demand, more items desired, so don't have unemployment due to this increase in efficiency
Keep demand high by convincing people their lives require improvements that can be achieved by consumer purchases (blur difference wants and needs)
If we can make people feel they need X rather than just want it, more likely to buy (and so we get a blurring of difference between wants and needs)
Creep of perceived needs: Easy for people to see they need food, clothing, housing, then becomes indoor plumbing, then stylish indoor plumbing, then 2nd/3rd bathroom, kitchen disposal, refrigerator attached to plumbing so ice can be made automatically in freezer, cold water obtained w/o opening refrigerator door, and on and on
All this needed to keep economy growing w/o limits
Toxic wastes produced in this context

Our cultural value system that sees good life as consuming more and more produces huge amounts of env. hazards

Get NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, as knowledge of health impairment due to toxic substances increases, people less tolerant of risks associated with their proximity

VI. WENZ'S CONCLUSION ABOUT WHO SHOULD GET THE ENV. HAZARDS

Principle. of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits indicates who should suffer burden of proximity to toxic wastes

Those who benefit most from the production of waste should shoulder the greatest share of burdens associated with its disposal

In our society, consumption of goods is the principal benefit associated with generation of toxic wastes

This consumption is generally correlated with income and wealth

So, justice requires that people's proximity to toxic wastes be related positively to their income and wealth (for the consumption that produces toxics is generally correlated with income and wealth)

This is exactly the opposite of the predominant tendency in our society

Unjust to expose poor people to vital dangers whose generation predominantly benefits the rich

VII. WENZ'S LULU POINTS PROPOSAL

Each community should be required to house some locally undesirable land uses=LULU

Assign points to different types of LULU
Require all communities to earn LULU points

LULUs include not only toxic wastes dumps, but also prisons, halfway houses, municipal waste sites, low-income housing (so poor would automatically get LULU points for living in one?), power plants (nuclear/coal)

Wealthy communities would be required to earn more LULU points than poorer ones (because their wealth/consumption creates more LULUs)

Communities required to host new LULUs in proportion to income/wealth to make up for current deviations from proportionality

Communities existing with LULUs get these points

Wenz's speculations about how to assign points: In general, more undesirable the land use, more points

More points for illegally dumped than legally stored toxic waste
Smaller amount of toxic waste gets fewer points, as do coal fired power plant
Nuclear plant 25 points, municipal garbage dump 5 points
100 unites of low income housing 8 points

VIII. Conclusion One: Implementing this proposal (LULU points) would ameliorate injustice of disproportionately exposing poor people to toxic hazards and largely solve problems of env racism

Largely solves problems of env racism (disproportionate impacts on nonwhites) because in so far as the poor exposed to env. hazards are nonwhites, relieving poor of disproportionate exposure would relieve nonwhites

IX. LULU Proposal would benefit life on earth by reducing generation of toxic hazards: When wealthy are exposed to env. hazards, culture will quickly evolve ways to eliminate their production.

Wealthy people control manufacturing processes, marketing campaigns, media coverage
When they are exposed to env. hazards, culture will evolve quickly to find their production is largely unnecessary
People will discover that plastic items can be made of wood, as we discovered in late 80s that ozone depleting chemicals not necessary

Proposal would not eliminate pollution entirely, since to live is to pollute

But would motivate significant reduction in generation of toxic wastes and help poor, especially nonwhites and also the env.

Approach should be applied internationally: Rich countries should not ship their toxic wastes to poor countries

Prohibiting this would discourage production of dangerous wastes as it would require people in rich countries to live with whatever dangers they create

X. WENZ REJECTS FREE MARKET AND COST BENEFIT SOLUTIONS TO DISTRIBUTION OF ENV. HAZARDS AS UNJUST

These theories justify locating env. hazards in poor, nonwhite areas)

Free Market approach (give toxics to those who will accept them for $) violates equal consideration of interests (and is thus unjust) when it is allowed to determine the distribution of vital needs

Toxic wastes (burden) should be placed where residents accept them in return for $ (benefit)
Whole communities could receive $ to improve schools, parks, hospitals and get tax revenue, jobs from business expansion when they accept env. hazards

When basic/vital goods/services at issue, equal consideration of interests requires ameliorating inequalities of distribution that markets tend to produce;

Where vital needs at stake, markets are supplemented or avoided for the sake of equal consideration of everyone's interests

Examples
One reason for public education is to provide every child with basic intellectual tools necessary for success; a purely free market would result in excellent education for children of wealthy parents and little ed for children of poor residents
- Poor kids opportunity would be so inferior that their interests were not given equal consideration
Medicaid for poor people, intends to supplement market transaction in health care as equal consideration of interest requires everyone be given access to health care
Military service in war: Use conscription. When national interest requires placing many people in moral danger, it is just that exposure be largely unrelated to income and market transactions
Equal consideration of interests requires rejecting purely free market approaches when basic/vital needs concerned

A child dying of cancer receives little benefit from community's new swimming pool

Because placement of toxic wastes affects vital interests as do education, health care, wartime service, exemption from market decisions is required to avoid unjust imposition on poor and to respect people's interests equally

Cost-Benefit Analysis (social wealth maximized by putting LULUs near poor whose land values are less) treats people unfairly

Maximizes society's wealth, as determined by what people are willing to pay
Will put LULUs near poor people, as it lowers land values (what people willing to pay) and since land already cheap where poor live, placing hazards there will not lose as much value as if placed in expensive land where wealthy people live
Overall smaller loss of social wealth by putting env. hazards in poor communities
Just the opposite of Wenz's Principle of Commensurate Burdens and Benefits
Violates equal consideration of interests, like the FM approach

Vital interest at stake, so equal consideration of interests requires that people be considered irrespective of income