Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
environmentalism was once a social justice movement - Coggle Diagram
environmentalism was once a social justice movement
The modern day environmentalist movement is defined by privilege and politics. It is not representative of minorities and should be abolished
The original environmental-justice movement (a movement that focused on intersectionality of environmentalism, race, and poverty) has been replaced by "modern environmental law." Modern environmental law is dominated by white, affluent voices that focused too much on preservation of exotic species and spaces simply for aesthetic purposes.
Modern environmental law, even though it is not applicable to communities of color and poverty, is defined by their activism. The laws do not have a unifying textual basis and often allow politicians to mold them however they like. Presidents such as Reagan and Trump have capitalized on this to further pro-capitalist anti-anvironmentalist ideas. Essentially, the modern environmentalist movement is based on flimsy ideals that still endanger the environment and vulnerable communities.
Even with legal groups such as the Environmental Protection Agency, these groups are reliant on the philosophies and beliefs of those heading them. Their actions are tied to whether or not the leaders have connections or lobbyists fighting against climate change/ending the fossil fuel industry. An example is how the Environmental Protection Agency, at the time of the article's publication, was headed by climate-change denier Myron Ebell and would be succeeded by Scott Pruitt, someone with ties to the fossil fuel agency
Modern environmentalism does not focus on overall effects of climate change. It ignores the communities that are bearing the brunt of toxic waste dumps, incineration plants, etc. because they are in their own neighborhoods.
Modern environmental-law tends to look at climate-change as something that will happen, or the effects of which will occur in the future. It disregards the people who are living in inhabitable, hot, degrading areas. The action is delayed because it comes from the lens of those privileged enough to not be effected by climate change.
The privileged voices that define modern environmentalism already have the privilege of clean, nice living and work spaces. Therefore, their focus is on the "exotic" and "foreign" spaces. Their focus does not acknowledge urban spaces and artificial human environments that are often dirty and borderline unlivable.
Modern-environmental law assumes the belief that environmentalism is not for people, and therefore limits any broader interpretation of environmentalism simultaneously creating change alongside racial movements and class liberation movements.
Modern environmentalism praises lobbying and litigation instead of popular engagement, which skips over the voices of the poor and marginalized.
The movement is defined by well-educated voices who often do not interact with the brunt of climate change. They live comfortably, have air conditioning, have personal transportation, etc.
Since corporate greed is such an integral part of the movement, modern environmental law was essentially created to cater to the needs of corporate partners and wealthy investors. So if fossil fuels help the corporate partners/investors, modern environmental law will not directly oppose or work to dismantle the fossil fuel industry. Money is the most integral influence in modern environmentalism.
But what about Yellowstone's establishment as a National Park in 1872? Yes this was created from the voices of the people, but reiterates that environmentalists of this movement care more about landscapes and "pure" nature untouched by humans rather than where people actually live.
Modern environmentalism relies on the power of "legal liberalism" While the concept is creative in the ways it gives a voice to marginalized people through advocacy groups and corporate funders, it is limited in its efficiency because of elitism and the need for specific "expertise." Additionally, it could be possible that "legal liberalism" muted the radicalism of the general population in order to be more easily digestible and helpful for their corporate or law-related image.
Environmental-justice movements are more effective than the modern day environmentalist movement because it is intersectional. It blends the movements of environmentalism, anti-racism, and class liberation.
Environmental-justice has been a movement much longer than the modern environmentalist movement. There are patterns over a hundred years that focus on the work of scholars and activists to address themes of fairness, inequality, and political/economic power in the environment (1964 Wilderness Act, 1962 Silent Spring publication)
Where modern environmentalism may preach against violent riots and strikes, environmental-justice supports these movements and recognizes them as uplifting marginalized voices of workers (example: coal miners)
Modern environmental-law and environmental justice cannot coexist at all. Modern environmental law is run by elitism and plays into the industrial complex whereas environmental justice focuses on dismantling all of the systems in which environmental-law is based upon. Environmentalism must be one or the other.
Modern environmentalists may be inclined to criticize blue collar workers or factory workers for playing a role in businesses that harm the environment. The environmental-justice movement acknowledges the intersectionality of different circumstances that blue-collar workers face. Environmental-justice criticizes the heads of such industries while simultaneously acknowledging the lack of autonomy blue collar workers may experience due to financial situation and the ecology of their existence. It acknowledges the hierarchy of society and criticizes populations based on that hierarchy.
With a new environmental justice movement that prioritizes the worker, and those who are poor or marginalized, it creates a pressure for those in charge to consider the priorities of underrepresented communities. Since environmental justice relies on the collective voice of the people rather than politicians or the elite, it can put minorities, poor people, and workers at the forefront of the change.
A key aspect of environmental-justice is creating a collective ecological consciousness that connects the population despite the class, racial, or other sociological borders that divide society. The key aspect to this consciousness, however, is to stir fear even in the people who are not directly effected by environmental issues. It is built on fear, but also concern about the wellbeing of a population someone may not have ever interacted with.
Inequality related to environmentalism goes beyond concept commonly considered under the umbrella of "environmental justice." It connects to federal farm subsidies and the rise of food apartheids and rising prices of generally healthy products. The intersectionality of race and poverty play a critical role in looking at environmentalism as a movement for people instead of just landscape preservation.
Environmentalism is defined by MacKaye as a preserving environments. Environments are both industrial areas and "natural" areas. The environment is New York and the Hudson river flowing through it. Essentially defined environmental-justice in 1935: it is the preservation of all environments. Worked to incorporate urban planning into environmental priorities.
Environmental-justice can be applied to broader concepts of environment, such as workplace, factories, etc. It involves concept such as industrial toxicology. Environmental-justice works as a complex way to reframe the narrative of what environments are worth saving, which are all the places in which living creatures exist. The bottom of the ocean and a factory where immigrants work are all environments that deserve to be livable and comfortable for the populations that live there.
It should become a social justice movement again.
How can it become a social justice movement again?
Create a movement, for the people, by the people. Have politics work in response to civilian voices instead of them working in place of civilian voices. Remember: "Economic power, racial inequality, and the struggles of indigenous peoples are not optional or supplemental. They are at the heart of the work."