EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM WEAK

Document Sample
EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM WEAK Powered By Docstoc
					Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                         ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX p. 1/2

3       Environmental Racism Takeouts: Front Line
4       Evidence Of Environmental Racism Weak
        Government Policy Effectively Addressing Environmental Racism Now
5               Executive Order 12898
6               EPA Policies Have Implemented 12898 – Promote Environmental Justice Now
7-8             Government Environmental Justice Strategies Empower Local Communities
9       Environmental Justice Movement Ineffective
10      ―Environmental Justice‖ Flawed Framework
11      Can‘t Solve Environmental Racism Front Line
12      Difficult To Solve Environmental Racism
13      EJ Focus on ―Local‖ Impacts Ignores ―Regional‖ Impacts
14      Government Attempts to Solve Environmental Racism Have Failed
15      Coal Doesn‘t Pollute/No Environmental Harm to Minorities
16      Coal Does Not Cause Global Warming
17      Economy Turn: Environmental Regulations Impose Racially Disparate Impacts: Front Line
18      Uniqueness: Coal Is King and Will Remain So
19      Coal Key to Low Energy Prices
21      Link: Mandated Reductions in Coal Consumption Undermine Economic Growth
22      Link: Mandated Reductions in Coal Consumption Violates Environmental Justice
23      Mandated Reductions in Coal Increase Deaths
24      Link: Environmental Regulations Impose Costs on Individuals
25-6    Link: Environmental Regulations Violate Environmental Justice
27-8    Links: Reducing Negative Externalities Undermines Growth
29      Links: Nuclear Power Costly
30      Link: Technology Mandates/RPS Increases Electricity Costs
31      Link: Energy Efficiency/Conservation Mandates Hurt the Poor
32-4    Internal Link: Higher Electricity Prices Disproportionately Harms Minorities
35      Internal Link: Minorities More Vulnerable to the Costs of Regulation
36-7    Internal Link: Personal Wealth Key to Quality and Length of Lives
38      Internal Link: Increased Unemployment Kills
39      AT: Minorities Have the Most to Gain from Environmental Regulations
40      AT—Aff Increases Jobs
41      AT: Aff Prevents Pollution
42      AT: Minority Groups That Agree With Us Are Not Representative
        Solvency Arguments/Link Turns Against Specific Affirmative Plans
43-6    Emissions Trading/Market Mechanisms Violate Environmental Justice
47      Policies That Seek Efficient Allocation of Pollution Control Costs Violate Environmental Justice
48      Taxes Violate Environmental Justice
49-52   Nuclear Power Violates Environmental Justice
53-4    NRC Does not Consider Environmental Justice Concerns in Its Decisions
55-8    AT: Precautionary Principle/Public Participation Solves Environmental Justice
59      Project Xl Violates Environmental Justice
60      Command and Control Regulations Solve Environmental Justice
61      Turn: Focus On ―Environment‖ Undermines Solution To ―Racism‖ : Front Line
62-3    Focus on Siting Decisions/Intentional Acts Ignores Underlying Racism
64      Focus on Deliberate Racist Outcomes Diverts Racism Debate to One over Study Methodology
65-6    Focus on Distribution of Environmental Harms Ignores Procedural Racism
67      Whites Feel More Comfortable Viewing This as an Environmental Issue – Ignore Their Own Complicity in Racism
68-9    Can‘t Promote Social Justice or Solve Racism by Focusing On Environmental Policies
70      Turn: Distributive Justice Focus of EJ Undermines Justice: Front Line
71      Assumptions of Distributive Justice Paradigm Flawed
72      Distributive Justice Ignores Procedural Justice – Critical To Solve
73      Distributional Focus Just Shifts Harms To Other Less Powerful Groups
74      Distributive Justice Policies Thwarted By Capitalism


                                                                                                                      1
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                      ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX p. 2/2

75     Turn: Investment in Minorities Communities
76     Turn: Shift To Developing Countries Front Line
77     Link: Phasing Out of Coal Causes Shift of Coal to Developing Countries
78     Link: EJ Success against Polluting Industries in the US Causes Shift
79     Link: Distributive Justice Focus Causes Shift
80     Link: Stronger Environmental Standards Causes Shift
81     Link: Emissions Reductions Requirements Cause Shift
82     US EJ Movement Increases Global Environmental Injustice—Must Have Global Focus to Succeed
83     US EJ Movement Insufficient to Prevent Shift Unless it Attacks Capitalism
84     Impact: Shift Violates Environmental Justice
85     Impact: Shifting Coal Undermines African Energy Needs—Precludes Ability To Leapfrog Fossil Fuels
86     AT: Clean Coal Exports Will Benefit Africa
87     Impact: Shift Threatens Global Ecosystems and Food Supplies
88     Impact: Shift Threatens Local Environments and Worker Safety
89     AT: Shift Helps Economies of Developing Countries
90     Turn: Paternalism Front Line
91     Polluting Industries Bring Economic Benefits to Minority Communities
92-3   Minorities Move near Polluting Industries for Economic Benefits
94     Environmental Justice Discourse Characterizes Communities as ―Victims‖
95     Unjust/Racist to not Let Communities Weigh Environmental Risks against Economic Benefits
96     Turn: Community Empowerment : Front Line
97     No Solvency without Focus on Community Empowerment
98     Should Shift Focus to Community Empowerment Strategies
99     Turn: Sustainble Development Tradeoff Front Line
100    EJ Victories Undermine Sustainability
101    Goals of Environmental Justice and Sustainability Fundamentally in Conflict
102    Environmental Justice Movement Not Interested In Environmental Sustainability
103    Distributive Justice Incompatible with Goals of Sustainability
104    Environmental Sustainability Movement Ignore Environmental Justice Claims
105    Turn: Specieism
106    Turn: EJ Essentializes
107    Discourse K – Use Of ―Racism‖ Good




                                                                                                          2
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                   ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM TAKEOUTS: FRONT LINE

STUDIES BASED ON CENSUS DATA DO NOT FIND A LINK BETWEEN RACE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SITINGS
Colin Crawford, Instructor of Law, Brooklyn Law School, Fall 1996, 12 J. Land Use & Envtl L 103, Analyzing Evidence of
Environmental Justice: A Suggestion for Professor Been, http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol121/Crawford.pdf. p. 103
Perhaps the most prominent critic of these proposals was New York University Law School Professor Vicki Been. In a 1993 article,
Professor Been suggested that zip code analysis is flawed due to the varying size of the zip code areas used for comparison.
Subsequently, the University of Massachusetts Social and Demographic Research Institute (SADRI) released a study that supported
Professor Been‘s suggestions. The SADRI study covered the same ground as the seven-year old UCC Study, finding on the basis of
census data that no definitive correlation exists between racial and ethnic minorities and the location of hazardous waste sites.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 REQUIRES AGENCIES TO TAKE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INTO ACCOUNT IN
DECISIONMAKING
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 241
After achieving only modest success in the courts and suffering repeated failures in Congress, the environmental justice movement
received its biggest boost on February 11, 1994, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12,898, entitled "Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations" (the "Executive Order"). n60 The Executive
Order requires each federal agency to develop strategies to achieve environmental justice by "identifying and addressing...
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations." n61 At a minimum, these strategies should: (1) encourage enforcement of federal and state
health and environmental statutes in communities with high poor and minority populations; (2) increase public involvement; (3)
conduct more accurate research and obtain more precise data regarding the health and environment of poor and minority communities;
and (4)analyze disparities with respect to the use of natural resources by poor and minority populations. n62

EPA HAS INCORPORATED EO 12898 INTO ITS POLICIES
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 243-4
Pursuant to the President's Executive Order, the EPA developed an environmental justice strategy aimed at integrating
environmental justice into the Agency's programs and policies. n72 The stated goal is to ensure that "no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, as a result of the EPA's policies, programs, and activities, suffers
disproportionately from adverse human health or environmental effects, and all people live in clean, healthy, and sustainable
communities." n73
  In accordance with the Executive Order's emphasis on grassroots community involvement, the EPA based its strategy on three
guiding principles: (1) environmental justice begins and ends in communities; (2) helping affected communities gain access to
information will enable them to participate meaningfully in activities; and (3) effective leadership will advance environmental
justice. n74 Following these principles, the EPA developed an approach focused on establishing common sense standards and
procedures for conducting the Agency's programs. n75 This "Common Sense" Initiative n76 attempts to bring together
communities, environmentalists, industry, states, tribes, and others to develop cleaner, cheaper, and smarter solutions to environmental
problems. n77 Along with four other mission topics, the Common Sense Initiative focuses on "public participation, accountability,
partnerships, and communication with stakeholders." n78 Based on the realization that effective environmental justice strategies
require early involvement by affected communities and other stakeholders, the Agency will actively seek to incorporate the expertise
of local, affected community members throughout this process. n79

VAGUENESS OF WHAT ―ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE‖ INCLUDES MAKES ITS ACHIEVEMENT DIFFICULT
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 82
Harvey (1996) praised the movement for using a term that unabashedly appeals to morality instead of economic nationality. However,
while he asserted that appeals to a vision of environmental justice may be essential to inspire political action for social change, he
cautioned that the lack of a universal standard of justice confound efforts to privilege grassroots claims over those of other political
interests.




                                                                                                                                      3
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                      EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM WEAK

LITTLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT MINORITIES ARE DISPORPORTIONATELY EXPOSED TO
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND POLLUTION
Kent E. Portney, Associate Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department, Tufts University, 1994, Fordham
Urban Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 827, p. 829-30
   Despite the research making the case for eco-racism, it has not been totally clear until recently that African-Americans and other
minority populations are necessarily exposed to greater environmental risks. Even the UCC's study suggested that on a national scale,
there is not a great deal of variation in the likelihood that people of a given racial or ethnic group live near hazardous waste sites.
According to the UCC report, nearly half of the U.S. population lives in communities with toxic waste sites. n10 The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency suggested in 1992 that, with the very notable exception of exposure to lead, there is a real lack of
information concerning actual exposure to environmental risks necessary to be able to draw definitive conclusions. n11 Since that
time, evidence has started to mount that indeed minorities and lower socio-economic status people are at considerably greater risk
from exposure to environmental contaminants than other people. Undoubtedly, the environmental justice movement has made
significant strides in elevating the scrutiny that equity issues have received, in sensitizing people to biases in the way environmental
risks are borne, and in beginning a process of creating checks against private sector abuses. What is less clear is the potential impact of
achieving greater equity in pursuit of sustainability.

VAGUENESS OF TERMS MAKES CONCLUSIONS ABOUT RACISM DIFFICULT
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 78
Scholars often contend that we need to establish precise definitions of the terms environmental equity, environmental justice and
environmental racism. Although in academic literature the terms usually refer to geographic associations between pollution or waste
sites and low-income or minority communities, researchers continue to disagree about whether the patterns they observe constitute
evidence of inequity, injustice or racism. Some suggest that we can move beyond this disagreement if we can reach consensus about
what the terms mean.




                                                                                                                                         4
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
            GOVERNMENT POLICY EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM NOW
                                     Executive Order 12898

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 REQUIRES FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TAKE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
INTO ACCOUNT IN THEIR ACTIONS
John Harner et al, University of Colorado @ Colorado Springs, 2002, ―Urban Environmental Justice Indices,
http://communicate.aag.org/eseries/temp/Files/13.pdf. p. 318
Executive Order 12898, passed in 1994, requires each federal agency to adopt the principle of environmental justice in policy
development. As a result, there is an increasing need for a single quantitative EJ measurement method to help federal and state
policymakers in their decision processes.

EO 12898 REQUIRES FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AS PART OF THEIR
MISSION
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 86
In response to the mounting evidence of disproportionate impact and political pressure from environmental justice advocates,
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12,898 (EO 12,898), entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," on February 11, 1994. With this action, President Clinton made clear that
environmental justice is an administration priority. EO 12,898 requires each federal agency to "make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." n23 To achieve this goal, EO
12,898 created an interagency working group to coordinate efforts in and between all the federal agencies.

EO 12898 REQUIRES FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ENSURE THEIR ACTIONS DON‘T VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 86-7
  In conjunction with EO 12,898, President Clinton issued a memorandum directing federal department and agency heads to ensure
that "all programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not directly, or
through contractual or other arrangements... discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin" in accordance with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act. n24 The memorandum also directed each federal agency to consider effects on minority and low-income
communities when preparing environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. n25 The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in particular, has a special duty to ensure federal agencies have fully analyzed [*87]
environmental impacts of emissions regulations on minority and low-income communities through its duty under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) to review environmental effects of proposed actions of other federal agencies. n26




                                                                                                                                        5
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
            GOVERNMENT POLICY EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM NOW
                      EPA Policies Have Implemented 12898 – Promote Environmental Justice Now

EPA HAS HAD LONG COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – PREDATES EO 12898
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 87
  Even before EO 12,898, the EPA had begun responding to the concerns of environmental justice advocates. In 1990, the agency
formed an internal working group to study evidence of inequitable distribution of environmental risk. As a result of the working
group's findings, the EPA created the Office of Environmental Equity, later renamed the Office of Environmental Justice and
directed the Office of Civil Rights to investigate environmental justice complaints. n27 In addition, the EPA established the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), which is composed of academics, community and environmental
activists, industry representatives, non-governmental organizations, state and local government officials, and tribal representatives.
n28 NEJAC provides independent advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA on environmental justice issues. n29

POWER PLANT SITING DECISIONS INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Dorothy W. Bisbee, Visiting Assistant Professor, Southern New England School of Law, 2004, Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 349, p. 365-6
  EJ is an important consideration in NEPA review. Executive Order 12,898 states that "each Federal agency shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations . . . ."
n89 The Council on Environmental Quality guidance describes EJ considerations for various stages of the NEPA process, including
scoping, public participation, and determining the affected environment. n90 This guidance indicates that agencies should identify
affected populations during the scoping process, n91 and requires lead agencies to analyze human health effects, along with social
and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations. n92
  Non-NEPA law and policy also often mandate a consideration of EJ. For example, section 309 of the Clean Air Act n93 allows
EPA to comment on air-related EJ issues in an EIS. n94 Many states have EJ offices, laws, or policies that may require review when
state environmental impact review is involved. n95




                                                                                                                                         6
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
            GOVERNMENT POLICY EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM NOW
                      Government Environmental Justice Strategies Empower Local Communities

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 PROMOTES COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 241-2
  Most significantly, the Executive Order emphasizes grassroots community involvement. n63 Environmental human health research
must include diverse segments of the population, including poor and minority communities which may be exposed to substantial
environmental hazards. n64 The Executive Order encourages the public to submit recommendations to federal agencies relating to
the incorporation of environmental justice principles into agency programs. n65 In addition, certain public documents relating to
human health or the environment may be translated for minority communities, n66 and each agency must ensure that important
documents, notices, and hearings are concise, understandable, and readily available to the public. n67 A memorandum following the
Executive Order directs each federal agency to provide opportunities for community input in the National Environmental Policy Act
n68 ("NEPA") process, including consultation with affected communities and improving the accessibility of meetings, crucial
documents, and notices. n69 Although the Executive Order represents a significant achievement for the environmental justice
movement, its efficacy is still to be determined. n70 In fact, since none of its provisions allows for judicial review, it ultimately risks
failure. n71

EPA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MANDATES IN A WAY THAT
EMPOWERS COMMUNITIES
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 244-5
  Foremost among the EPA's projects to address and remedy environmental injustice is its Brownfields program. n80 The program is
designed to address the problems associated with abandoned commercial and industrial properties (known as "brownfields"), which
are located overwhelmingly in minority and poor communities. n81 The EPA hopes this program will: stem the environmentally
damaging and racially divisive phenomenon of urban sprawl and Greenfields development; focus on problems that are inextricably
linked with environmental justice; allow communities to offer their vision for redevelopment; apply environmental justice
principles to the development of a new environmental policy; and provide greater awareness of and opportunities for partnership-
building between the EPA and affected communities and other stakeholders. n82
  The Brownfields program clearly embodies the Executive Order's emphasis on grassroots community involvement. n83 By making
a concerted effort to work with community groups, investors, lenders, developers, and other affected parties, the Brownfields program
recognizes that communities directly affected by a problem or project are imminently qualified to participate in the decision-making
process. n84 By providing services such as training and support for community groups and technical assistance grants, the
Brownfields program seeks to establish mechanisms to ensure the full and meaningful participation of all affected parties. n85
  By actively seeking community input and involvement, the Brownfields program, in theory, enables poor and minority communities
to influence the decision-making process; thus, addressing the problem of powerlessness by providing these disadvantaged
communities with a modicum of political empowerment. n86

ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING INCREASINGLY SOLICITING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 459-60
  Environmental decision-making is undergoing a profound shift. Traditional forums and processes are being displaced by
mechanisms emphasizing local, "place-based" decision-making. These emerging decision-making mechanisms are orchestrated
through collaborative processes featuring stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. This transformation is evident in a
number of recent governmental initiatives, including those by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), most notably its
Community-Based Environmental Protection ("CBEP") initiative. n1 Other federal agencies, particularly those with land or species
management responsibilities, have similarly advocated a greater role for local decision-makers and collaborative problem-solving. n2
Most recently, the Bush administration has hailed the move toward local, collaborative processes as ushering in a "new
environmentalism for the 21st century." n3

EPA HAS EMBRACED PARTICIPATORY REVOLUTION TO MEET NEEDS OF INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES
Stephen M. Nickelsburg, Law Student, Virginia Law Review, 1998, 84 Va. L. Rev. 1371, p. 1372-3
  The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has embraced the participatory revolution, first through its institutionalization of
ecosystem management principles, n13 and more recently through its Community-Based Environmental Protection ("CBEP")
initiative. n14 Altogether different from the command-and-control regulatory model, CBEP casts EPA in a "capacity-building" role,
as an incubator and a coach for voluntary, community-level environmental protection efforts. n15 By targeting resources at a few
communities most in need of a federal boost, n16 spreading the word about locations where voluntary measures have succeeded, and
facilitating access to organizational blueprints and scientific information, EPA hopes to inspire regional efforts in which local
stakeholders seek their own environmental solutions. n17



                                                                                                                                          7
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
            GOVERNMENT POLICY EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM NOW
                      Government Environmental Justice Strategies Empower Local Communities

CURRENT EPA POLICY ENCOURAGES PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TO FACILITATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Gary A. Abraham, Law Student, 1997, Buffalo Environmental Law Journal, 5 Buff. Envt'l. L.J. 79, p. 80
  In contrast to equal protection and other civil rights approaches, the public participation approach to environmental justice is
already mandated by NEPA and its state counterparts. n70 The effect of the President's Executive Order on Environmental Justice
in broadening the public participation approach aims to reduce both the "democratic deficit" and the "legitimacy deficit" in
administrative law. n71 To the extent that it succeeds in achieving this goal, added reflexivity in environmental decision making will
improve the efficiency of those decisions. n72




                                                                                                                                     8
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                  ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT INEFFECTIVE

EJ MOVEMENT LOSING POWER NOW
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 111
Despite its institutional successes, there are growing indications that the environmental justice movement may have reached its
political high tide mark, at least for the foreseeable future. Goldman argues that the movement ‗may be entering the most difficult
phase of its early history‘ as political opposition to environmentalism strengthens in the federal and state legislatures. The so-called
Wise Use campaign has united many industry and resource user groups who argue that US environmental standards and regulations
are too stringent and represent an ‗unjust‘ circumscription of private property rights. The Wise Use lobbies have been successful in
shaping the environmental and resource policies of the Republican Party which now controls Capitol Hill and many state legislatures.
Generally speaking, the contemporary programmatic support for a range of state functions. Critically, these targeted functions include
affirmative action programs, redistributive social polices, and environmental regulation, all key public policy elements for the
environmental justice movement. During 1994-5, the reality of the Wise Use threat to environmental justice was underscored when
the Republican Party proposed radical funding cuts to the federal EPA. Green lobbies and most Democrats countered that these cuts,
if realized, would undermine the principal federal institutional base of the environmental justice movement.




                                                                                                                                      9
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                    ―ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE‖ FLAWED FRAMEWORK

MULTIPLICITY OF INTERPRETATIONS OF ―ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE‖ UNDERMINES EFFECTIVE POLICY
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 78
Nonetheless, in spite of our best efforts to pin down the definitions of these terms, activists, government agencies, and other political
interests continue to interpret them differently. For example, many grassroots activists insist that environmental justice demands the
prevention of all toxic pollution. In contrast, President Clinton‘s (1994) Executive Order 12898 to United States federal agencies
promotes a conception of environmental justice that leaves room for the continued production of toxic waste, as long as its negative
effects do not fall disproportionately on disadvantaged communities. Does progress in urban environmental justice research demand
that we pronounce one of these interpretations of the term to be closer to some ―true‖ definition?

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICYMAKING DIFFICULT – NO CLEAR DEFINITION
CV Phillips & K. Sexton, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Minnesota, 1999, ―Science and
policy implications of defining environmental justice.‖ J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, Jan/Feb; 9(1): 9-17,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10189623&dopt=Abstract
Although 'environmental justice' is an increasingly important issue for policy makers and researchers, it remains for many a vague and
abstract notion that is hard to define in practical, real-world terms. Part of the problem is that environmental justice is a complex,
multidimensional construct that cannot easily be defined. Our aim in this article is to identify fundamental dimensions of
environmental justice and highlight the resulting questions that are an inherent part of putting principles into practice. We argue that to
have a constructive and informed debate about this emotionally charged topic, it is necessary to have a clear and workable definition
of environmental justice. We do not propose our own definition, but instead point out that there are many possible legitimate
definitions depending on one's beliefs, opinions, and values. The central point is not that a particular definition is right or wrong, but
rather than choosing a definition has distinct implications for the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of both policy and
science. These critical choices should be made explicit so that public dialogue can focus on the substance of this important policy
issue.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DOOMED IN A STATE-CENTERED INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 120
There is an implicit assumption in most of the debates on justice in the environment that the existing political system can in fact
deliver it. Largely absent is the question of the justice of the political system itself. In fact, the global political system, composed of
competing nation states, may be unfitted for the task of guaranteeing environmental justice. This question, as we saw in the last
chapter, is an increasingly important one in philosophical discussions of justice. It is also highly salient in the debate on justice to the
environment, justice to nature, which we consider in the next two chapters.




                                                                                                                                          10
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                   CAN‘T SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM FRONT LINE

CAN‘T IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN URBAN AREAS WITHOUT CHANGING BUSINESS INTERESTS
AND PRACTICES
Michael Gelobter, Assistant Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, 1994, Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 841, p. 847
   The importance of developers in the life of cities is a reflection of the even more fundamental relationship between business and
urban areas. Cities are key economic hubs. As a result, business and corporate interests struggle constantly and, by and large,
successfully to control the conditions not just of land, but of labor and resources in urban areas. This struggle has been the subject of
much research on the relative autonomy of the local state from business interests. n20 These debates, however, fail to recognize that
the struggle of corporate interests to control city interests involves the same corporate interests that seek control of the nation-state and
the international flows of capital and labor. The business decisions that are made by General Motors and that shape the environment of
Los Angeles are part of an industry-wide and worldwide strategy. n21 Business interests in the modern metropolis can no longer be
distinguished from those in the world at large.
   All of this points to the tremendous barriers faced by low-income and minority communities struggling for environmental justice
in the metropolis. Business entrenches and defines its interests into the very fabric of the city, and the city lives to serve its purposes.
Environmental decisions taken in this context rarely see the light of democratic scrutiny. They pass through vast bureaucracies,
skittering along the edge of the acceptable to pursue their economic ends.

IDENTITY POLITICS FLAWED – NO CLEAR CUT IDENTITY
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 197
Identity politics, however, can be tricky. We cannot fall into the trap of ascribing a unitary resistance identity to oppositional
subaltern groups, even though such groups may present themselves in a highly unified way. In reality, identifies are rarely so cut-and-
dried. Instead, they are marked by contradictions and continual change. More often, the identities of the subaltern are characterized
by feelings of denigration, desire for the ―other‖ (the dominant one), internalization of aspects of the dominant identity, and feelings of
pride and resistance in terms of one‘s own oppressed group. Thus identities themselves are simultaneously sites of oppression and
resistance. Furthermore, this mix and orientation of an identity can and does shift over time.

FOCUS ON SITING AS A SOLUTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM INADEQUATE
Gerald Torres, Head Professor of Real Property Law, University of Texas Law School, 1996, The Journal of Law and Commerce,
15 J.L. & Com. 597, p. 617-8
   The emergence of the environmental justice movement and the constellation of issues surrounding it is linked to other important
trends in environmental policy. Among the emerging ideals in environmental policy are sustainable development, ecosystem
management, and pollution prevention. Each of these policy ideals has at its core notions of connectedness drawn from both the
science of ecology and the economics of development. n63 Yet, except for the work of Robert Collin and Robin Morris Collin, few
have drawn the connections to other important themes in environmental policy outside of the realm of the international application of
the environmental justice ideal. Rachel Godsil has been an important contributor to the debate over risk assessment and
environmental justice, n64 but that argument has really centered on the siting controversy. While struggles over the siting of
facilities that create environmental burdens on communities were the foundation of early activism on the issue, and the subject of early
empirical scholar-ship, there are many other threats to environmental quality that will continue to place many communities at risk
regardless of the reform of the siting process. Moreover, some commentators have noted that in terms of actual environmental threat
(putting aside the question of cumulative burdens for the moment), reform of the siting process will only bring marginal improvements
in public health for the subject communities. n65 By putting the issue of environmental justice into the broader debate over
environmental quality, the relationship of the underlying issues to concepts such as sustainability becomes clear.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FOCUS ON LOCAL IMPACTS – IGNORE REGIONAL IMPACTS
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 108
In contrast, the environmental justice critique focuses solely on the local impacts of air pollutants. Since environmental justice
advocates are concerned with the disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority communities specifically, they do not address
regional impacts because regional impacts affect numerous communities. While smog affects the entire South Coast Air Basin as
opposed to a specific community, air pollutants causing smog have both a regional and local impact. n122 While VOCs and nitrogen
oxide only contribute to smog on a regional level, they are also toxic on a localized level. This brings environmental justice and
marketable permits advocates to a head.




                                                                                                                                          11
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                     DIFFICULT TO SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE OFTEN A DIRECT RESULT OF DEVELOPERS AND REAL-ESTATE
INDUSTRY
Michael Gelobter, Assistant Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, 1994, Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 841, p. 845-6
   The real-estate and development community plays a critical role in urban politics. n18 Developers are major financiers of
municipal political campaigns, and their projects are often critical to a city's tax base and economy. Furthermore, the generation of
new use values often are linked to a city's compromise with, or capitulation to, a developer seeking to extract a property's exchange
value. Although this also occurs in non-urban settings, the city's structure is fundamentally linked to some of these land use decisions.
Many urban political careers are thus made or broken based on a politician's ability to deliver on a proposed land use or site
development.
   Urban environmental injustice is often a direct result of land speculation by developers and realtors who under- or over-develop
properties based on their long-term investment plan in a community. These plans usually have nothing to do with a community's use
values, and a large part of the speculation takes place based on value that can be extracted from environmental characteristics of the
land.

DECONSTRUCTIVE POLITICS – POST MODERNISM COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE GOALS OF
CHALLENGING HIERARCHIES AND OPPRESSION
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 207
Handler (1992) has challenged the hegemony of postmodernism by questioning what it does for poor and disenfranchised people.
―The results of deconstruction politics are serious. Postmodernism celebrates its lack of global vision. The postmodernists defend
their position with the claim, ―there are no grand narratives.‖ However, the opposition is not playing that game. It has belief systems,
meta-narratives that allow theories of power, of action.‖

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE HAS BEEN COOPTED BY SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS – NO REAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA AT STAKE
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 210
One problem that seems to exacerbate tensions and preclude full partnership is the fact that while subaltern groups are contending with
very real environmental problems, such groups also know that environmentalism is an effective avenue in which to market
themselves. The world is excited about poor people jumping on the environmental bandwagon, and marginal communities seek to
obtain the maximum mileage out of this connection. This should not diminish the legitimacy of their concerns but emphasize their
relative powerlessness as they seek to secure societal approval and support for their mobilization efforts. Because of the political shift
to the right during the 1980s, and power, have not been politically viable ideas. Thus, activists have sought to identify themselves
with more politically palatable issues, such as environmentalism.




                                                                                                                                       12
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                          EJ FOCUS ON ―LOCAL‖ IMPACTS IGNORES ―REGIONAL‖ IMPACTS

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REQUIREMENTS FOCUS ON LOCAL IMPACTS – IGNORE MORE APPROPRIATE
REGIONAL IMPACTS
Dorothy W. Bisbee, Visiting Assistant Professor, Southern New England School of Law, 2004, Boston College Environmental
Affairs Law Review, 31 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 349, p. 367
  Like environmental impact statutes, EJ tends to focus on opposing adverse impacts rather than promoting beneficial ones. As a
result, EJ policies may not include provisions for advocacy of renewable energy projects. For example, unlike fossil fuel projects,
renewable energy projects are not subject to elevated EJ review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. n96 The decision
not to subject renewable energy projects to EJ review was made to reduce roadblocks to renewable energy projects. n97 An
unintended consequence of this decision, however, is that it ignores emission reductions and therefore removes the argument that
agencies should take a hard look at regional, as opposed to local, impacts of utility-scale wind projects on minority and low-income
populations. n98 The final consequences of reduced state EJ scrutiny for a federal/state project like Cape Wind are not significant,
since federal EJ requirements still apply. Nevertheless, this is an important example of the need to consider regional as well as local
impacts, and benefits as well as detriments, when conducting renewable energy environmental review.




                                                                                                                                    13
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
               GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM HAVE FAILED

NO EVIDENCE THAT GOVERNMENT POLICIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES HAVE BEEN
EFFECTIVE
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 86
Although several of these studies show how the policies and actions of federal, state, and local government institutions contributed to
patterns of inequality, none have delved deeply into the effects of recent government environmental justice programs themselves.
Have environmental justice grants, policies, and lawsuits begun to change the landscape of urban development? Have they expanded
or constrained the possibilities for grassroots environmental justice activism? With its emphasis on the actions of multiple
stakeholders and interests, Pellow‘s (2000) concept of ―environmental inequality formation‖ provides a potentially useful theoretical
framework for incorporating government environmental justice programs in case study analyses. Quantitative and qualitative methods
alike would have important roles in this new research agenda.




                                                                                                                                    14
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                    COAL DOESN‘T POLLUTE/NO ENVIRONMENTAL HARM TO MINORITIES

INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL SOLVE POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND BOOST THE ECONOMY, INCREASE JOBS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
To promote this economically vital source of energy for America, President Bush pledged during the 2000 campaign to invest $2
billion over 10 years to fund research into clean coal technologies. He has proposed investments that put us on course to exceed that
goal by more than 40 percent. The President‘s 2005 budget projects that by 2011 nearly $2.8 billion will have been spent on clean coal
technologies with the effect of improving air quality and human health, while boosting the American economy and creating new jobs.

NEW COAL PLANTS BURN AS CLEANLY AS NATURAL GAS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
With modern technologies, coal plants can burn as cleanly as natural gas plants, and further technology improvements can make them
virtually emissions-free. The President‘s clean coal research and development program is resulting in innovative, low-cost
environmental compliance technologies and efficiency-boosting innovations to keep coal at the center of our energy mix. For
example, the President‘s budget includes $237 million for FutureGen, the world‘s first coal-based, zero-emissions electricity and
hydrogen power plant. FutureGen is a component of the President‘s climate change strategy and will be a bold step toward a pollution-
and greenhouse gas-free energy future.

CLEAN COAL R&D HAS DRAMATICALLY REDUCED AIR POLLUTION
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
Clean coal research and development has been producing dramatic air quality gains as coal use has been increasing over the years.
Particulates – ash and soot – have been reduced by 97 percent. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are down by about two-thirds.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are down by about one-third.

CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE ENSURES THAT COAL-FIRED FACILITIES WILL NOT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT –
MAINTAIN AFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
The President‘s Clear Skies legislation will build on these gains by employing a cost-effective cap-and-trade program to reduce power
plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury by approximately 70 percent. The proven market-based approach of
Clear Skies and the sound economics of the level and timing of the emission caps will help most of the country meet the
Environmental Protection Agency‘s new, tough air quality standards for ozone and fine particles and encourage continued investment
in innovative pollution control technologies -- creating the market conditions to build new coal-fired generation so that cities and
counties can continue to use goal to generate reliable, inexpensive electricity.

CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE PROTECTS COAL AS CLEAN, LOW COST ENERGY SOURCE
Tom Niehaus, Ohio State Senator, February 9, 2005, Testimony Before Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee,
http://www.ohiocoal.com/
This Clear Skies initiative will benefit all Ohioans. In addition to improving air quality, it will provide more regulatory certainty to the
utility companies we depend on, which in turn will help reduce rate volatility to consumers. Clear Skies balances environmental,
energy and economic needs by recognizing both the importance of coal as a low-cost energy source and the need to mitigate the
environmental impact of coal-burning utilities.

AIR QUALITY WILL IMPROVE EVEN AS COAL CONSUMPTION INCREASES
The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, January 2005, "A Vision for Achieving Ultra-Low Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generation, http://www.nma.org/pdf/coal_vision.pdf
The projected increase in coal use will come with a continued improvement in air quality. The aforementioned 75 percent increase in
coal use since 1980 was accompanied by an equally impressive decline in emissions of SO2, NOx, and particulate matter.
Collectively, emissions of SO2 and NOx declined by 40 percent over this time period. At the same time, existing pollution controls
reduced mercury emissions by some 40 percent below uncontrolled levels.
As Figure Two shows, air emissions and emission rates for NOx and SO2 and the emissions for mercury are expected to continue to
fall even as coal use increases.
As shown in the table below, the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the proposed Clear Skies Act would both impose
more stringent caps on power plant emissions. With continuous development of technology, and retrofitting existing plants with
today's technologies, there is no doubt the industry will be able to meet the 2018 goals of the Administration's multi-emissions
legislation (The Clear Skies Act) as proposed in late 2003 and reintroduced in 2005.




                                                                                                                                         15
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                       COAL DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING

TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM COAL COMBUSTION
The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, January 2005, "A Vision for Achieving Ultra-Low Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generation, http://www.nma.org/pdf/coal_vision.pdf
Emissions reductions are not limited to SO2, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury. Both power sector carbon intensity (as measured
as the ratio of CO2 emissions to GDP) and coal-fueled generation carbon intensity are expected to continue their downward trends due
to greater inefficiencies in combustion technologies and, ultimately the ability to capture and sequester carbon cost effectively.




                                                                                                                                 16
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
ECONOMY TURN: ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IMPOSE RACIALLY DISPARATE IMPACTS: FRONT LINE

A. COAL IS VITAL TO LOW-COST ELECTRICITY-WILL CONTINUE TO BE A MAJOR SUPPLIER OF US POWER
The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, January 2005, "A Vision for Achieving Ultra-Low Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generation, http://www.nma.org/pdf/coal_vision.pdf
Historically, electricity demand has paralleled national GDP and population growth, and these upward trends are expected to continue
as the US economy, population and energy needs grow. Low-cost electricity has been shown to drive economic prosperity and a
better quality of life. Coal has been a major contributor to low-cost electricity. In 2003, the average cost of coal delivered to the
electric generator was 76 percent less than that of natural gas. This differential is forecast to stay approximately the same through
2025 in constant dollars. Sources of electricity generation other than coal - hydro, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and renewables -are
limited by cost, availability of fuel, or siting constraints. Thus coal, which now fuels more than half of electricity generated, is
expected to maintain or increase its share of the electricity market.

B. REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE COAL CONSUMPTION WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ENERGY PRICES
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 7
If regulations were enacted to limit the use of coal for power generation, it would become necessary to develop alternatives to this
low-cost power source that presently provides us with over half of our generation. These alternatives potentially include supply-side
alternatives such as natural gas generation, renewable power sources, and nuclear energy, as well as energy conservation and other
demand-side measures.
Most analyses of proposals that would reduce or replace coal use indicate that power costs would increase substantially, since the
costs of operating an existing coal plant tend to be relatively low compared to alternatives of building and operating alternative power
sources. In general, the greater the cost difference between existing coal plants and alternative sources (both supply-side and demand
side), the higher the impact on electric power costs, economic activity, and employment.

C. COSTS OF COAL REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS FALL DISPROPORTIONATELY ON MINORITY
COMMUNITIES –TURNS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2005, New Study Provides Insight into Environmental Policy Debate, 2004,
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=60
Policy makers have a new tool available to them as they consider regulatory actions that may limit the use of coal to generate
electricity. Mortality Reductions from the Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework, is a new, peer-reviewed
study co-authored by Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney. This research examines, for the first time, the human mortality impacts
associated with overly stringent regulations that would displace coal as the primary fuel used for electricity generation in the U.S. The
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) and the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) are commenting on
the findings of this new study as they use it to increase awareness of policy makers across the country.
In their analyses, Klein and Keeney build upon a decade or more of established research, which shows that, on net, increased
regulation does not always mean reduced risk. The Klein-Keeney report makes a significant contribution to the environmental policy
dialogue by identifying trade-offs American households will face as a result of increased regulation of the coal-based electricity
sector. The authors‘ analyses shows that these trade-offs can have a negative affect on adult mortality.
According to this report, removing coal from America‘s energy mix would directly result in 14,000 to 25,000 premature adult deaths
per year. Child deaths due to reduced income, as well as deaths resulting from increased unemployment, were not quantified in this
study. However, the authors‘ extrapolations from other studies suggest that these increased incidences of mortality could be
substantial.
The Klein-Keeney analyses also show that these cases of increased mortality are not spread evenly across the population. The highest
levels of increased mortality are likely to be concentrated in lower-income brackets. Assuming that costs are distributed proportionally
to electricity consumption, households with incomes of less than $15,000 per year (about 16.5 percent of American households) would
incur about 43 percent of the deaths identified in the study. In contrast, those households with incomes over $50,000 per year (about
41 percent of American households) would incur only about eight percent of the premature deaths. These disproportionate effects
would disadvantage certain minority communities.




                                                                                                                                      17
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                                           Uniqueness: Coal is King and Will Remain So

COAL IS OUR BEST FUEL OPTION TODAY
The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, January 2005, "A Vision for Achieving Ultra-Low Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generation, http://www.nma.org/pdf/coal_vision.pdf
Coal is a fuel of the present. In 2005 a record 1.143 billion tons of coal will be mined in the United States. Most of this coal will be
used to generate approximately 52 percent of the electricity that our nation uses to light, heat and cool our homes, schools, hospitals
and other community facilities and to run our factories.
Coal is and must remain a fuel choice in the future. Coal is our most abundant domestic fossil fuel resource, both in the United States
and world-wide. By 2005, 1.5 billion tons of coal will be produced in the US with the majority used to produce 52 percent of the
electricity that powers our nation. By 2005 small amounts of coal could be used to make liquid fuels and/or hydrogen. According to
the International Energy Agency, global coal use will continue to increase over the next 20 years. In 2025 coal will be the basis of
over 42 percent of electricity produced globally with a higher dependence on coal in the developing world, including China (78
percent) and India (70 percent).

COAL IS THE PREDOMINANT SOURCE OF US ELECTRICITY
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 1
For decades, coal has been the dominant source of electricity in the United States. As it is abundant, geographically widespread, and
inexpensive to mine, coal has been the energy source powering more than half of all electricity use since 1950. Indeed, the
availability of low-cost electricity has accelerated the electrification of our energy system, with an ever-growing share of our energy
use comprised of electricity.

COAL HAS DOMINANT POSITION IN METING ELECTRICITY NEEDS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
Our 250-year supply of coal—a lot of which you provide—is not only the Nation‘s most abundant energy resource, supplying more
than half of the energy needed to meet our electricity needs, but also our most secure energy resource and one we can continue to use
to meet our clean air goals.




                                                                                                                                      18
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                         ECONOMY TURN:
                                                    Coal Key to Low Energy Prices

INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN COAL SOLVE POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND BOOST THE ECONOMY, INCREASE JOBS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
To promote this economically vital source of energy for America, President Bush pledged during the 2000 campaign to invest $2
billion over 10 years to fund research into clean coal technologies. He has proposed investments that put us on course to exceed that
goal by more than 40 percent. The President‘s 2005 budget projects that by 2011 nearly $2.8 billion will have been spent on clean coal
technologies with the effect of improving air quality and human health, while boosting the American economy and creating new jobs.

COAL KEY TO LOW ELECTRICITY PRICES
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2005, Fueling Growth, http://www.careenergy.com/fueling_growth/competitive.asp
* Electricity is less expensive in the U.S. because producers pay less for fuel to generate electricity. One of the reasons they pay less is
because of abundant, inexpensive coal.

COAL VITAL TO LOW ELECTRICITY PRICES
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2005, Fueling Growth, http://www.careenergy.com/fueling_growth/competitive.asp
Coal makes low-cost electricity possible. Low-cost electricity is primarily a factor of fuel prices, and coal is and will continue to be
the least expensive option for generating electricity.
* The price of natural gas can be very volatile. Between 1999 and 2002, natural gas prices have fluctuated dramatically. In contrast,
prices for coal used in power plants have remained stable.
Source: EIA, Electric Power Monthly, January 2002, T.9.10
*
* Coal is still the dominant source of electricity today, supplying 51 percent of our electric power.
Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review 2001, T.8.2
*
* The U.S. has more than a 250-year supply of coal, which means that we have an abundance of coal-based capacity to meet the new
and growing demand for electricity.
* The cost of recovering coal reserves is estimated to remain very stable for the foreseeable future.

COAL POWER VITAL TO ECONOMIC GROWTH
The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group, January 2005, "A Vision for Achieving Ultra-Low Emissions from Coal-Fired
Electric Generation, http://www.nma.org/pdf/coal_vision.pdf
As our most abundant domestic energy resource, coal is vital to ensuring low-cost electricity and providing for an economically
prosperous future.
In an era of rising energy costs, low-cost electricity from coal improves the quality of life, strengthens the economy, protects national
security, and offers the best potential for increasing energy independence.

COAL KEY TO AFFORDABLE ELECTRICITY IN THE US
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2005, Fueling Growth, http://www.careenergy.com/fueling_growth/index.asp
The availability of low-cost electricity is crucial to America's position in world markets. Industries that produce innovative
advancements and fuel economic growth (technology, in particular) are driven by electric power - and most electric power in the U.S.
is driven by coal. Electricity from coal's role in America's energy supply is even more important now as our need for domestic sources
of energy rises. Because of its abundance and stable price, coal has been and will continue to be an essential component of long-term
sustainable economic development in the U.S. And, electricity from coal must play a major role in any long-term energy policy.




                                                                                                                                         19
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                   ECONOMY TURN:
                     Link: Mandated Reductions in Coal Consumption Undermine Economic Growth p. 1/2

EMISSIONS REDUCTION POLICIES WILL DEVASTATE THE ECONOMY AND COST MILLIONS OF US JOBS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
The President‘s climate change strategy takes advantage of the power of markets to help ensure continued economic growth and
prosperity for our citizens and throughout the world. In contrast, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate rejected
95-0 four years before President Bush took office, would have decimated the U.S. coal industry, cost the United States up to $400
billion in lost GDP, and led to the loss of as many as 4.9 million American jobs.

REDUCTION IN COAL CONSUMPTION WILL IMPOSE HUGE ECONOMIC COSTS –PRICES AND JOBS
James L. Connaughton, Chairman, White House Council on Environment Quality, August 5, 2004, http://www.ohiocoal.com/
Some think the old approach to reducing air pollutants would be best. Their plan would substantially increase your electricity bill – a
50 percent increase driven in large part by forcing a big switch away from America‘s secure coal reserves – and a 55 percent drop in
coal use. That would mean a lot of jobs lost in our Ohio coal fields.

REGULATIONS PHASING OUT COAL WILL SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. ES-1
Most of the energy studies we reviewed suggest that fully replacing coal-fueled power in the US could reduce total household income
substantially over a multiple year period. The peak year impact in 2010 could reduce total household income by $125 to $225 billion
(in year 2000$). This replacement could also increase unemployment by 2.2 to 4.5 million workers, an increase in the unemployment
rate of about 1.4 to 2.9 percentage points. These impacts appear to be persistent, often taking 5-10 years or more before the economy
adjusts to higher-cost alternatives.




                                                                                                                                      20
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                      ECONOMY TURN:
                        Link: Mandated Reductions in Coal Consumption Undermine Economic Growth p. 2/2

ALL CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS POLICIES RETARD GLOBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT—TURNS AIR
POLLUTION AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Indur M. Goklany, Masters and Ph.D. Michigan State, Political Economy Research Center Julian Simon Fellow, current employee of
the US Department of the Interior's Office of Policy Analysis, 2002, Rethinking Risk: And the Precautionary Principle, ed. Julian
Morris, p. 199-202
Attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond what could occur with secular trends in technology and the withdrawal of some
subsidies for energy will come at a cost to the world‘s economic development. We know that economic development, which creates
wealth, helps increase food supplies per capita (Figure 10.4) which, then, reduces malnutrition, mortality rates (Figure 10.5) and
increases life expectancies (Figure 10.6). Even if GHG control requirements were restricted to developed countries, economic growth
would suffer in developing countries because trade between the two sets of countries is an important factor in maintaining and
enhancing the latter‘s economic output (Goklany, 1992b, 1995). Thus, aggressively forcing the pace of reductions will almost
inevitably result in increased mortality rates and lowered life expectancies—to be balanced, if at all, by the more speculative benefits
associated with a reduction in the impacts of reduced warming.
Reduced economic development has other down sides. First, lower levels of economic development are correlated with higher total
fertility rates (Figure 10.7) which tends to push up population growth rates. Second, it diminishes a society‘s adaptability to adversity
in general and to climate change in particular (Goklany, 1992, 1995, 1996b). This is because poorer societies have fewer resources available to
research, develop, acquire, operate and maintain technologies that would help society better cope with whatever problems it may be plagued with, including unmet
public health, environmental and social needs. As we have seen, future non-climate change related environmental and public health problems ought to substantially
outweigh the adverse impacts of climate change for the next several decades. Third, a poorer society has lower crop yields (see Figure 10.8). For
any specific level of crop production, to compensate for lower yields, more habitat and forest land have to be converted to cropland,
which puts greater pressure on biodiversity, and reduces carbon stores and sinks. In fact, such conversion in the major threat to global
biodiversity (Goklany 1992, 1995, 1996b). It is hardly surprising that between 1980 and 1995, forest cover in developing countries
decreased by 190 million hectares (Mha) while it increased 20 Mha in the developed countries (FAO, 1997). Finally, efforts to
substantially reduce GHG emissions could, over the next several decades, divert scarce resources from addressing more urgent
environmental and public health problems (see Table 1).
As an alternative to imposing additional GHG control requirements, energy prices could be increased through taxes or, in effect,
through elimination of subsidies. Such price increases, however, could have unintended consequences. First, the productivity of the
food and agricultural sector would be reduced because that sector is heavily dependent upon oil and gas for running its farm machinery, production of inputs
such as fertilizers and pesticides, powering irrigation systems, and the movements of inputs and outputs from farm to markets. Thus food production would decline
and/or prices would go up. This is what happened following the oil shocks of the 1970s (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1999). In either case, malnutrition would increase
which, in turn, should increase rates of death and disease amongst those groups. Second, an estimated 2.8 million die annually
because of indoor air pollution worldwide, mainly because of the burning of solid fuels (e.g., coal, wood and dung) for heating and
cooking in the home in developing countries. Increasing fossil fuel prices would only make it harder for households using solid fuels
to switch to cleaner, commercial fossil fuels. Third, increasing fuel prices would inhibit the operation of heater in the winter and air
conditioners in the summer, which could, in turn, lead to greater sickness, if not mortality, due to cold and heat waves.




                                                                                                                                                              21
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                    ECONOMY TURN:
                        Link: Mandated Reductions in Coal Consumption Violates Environmental Justice

KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL INCREASE UNEMPLOYMENT AND REDUCE INCOMES OF MINORITIES
Center for Energy and Economic Development, 2000, Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes: how the Kyoto Protocol would
disproportionately threaten the economic well being of blacks and Hispanic in the US,
http://64.78.186.137/docs/Refusing_to_Repeat1.pdf, p. 10-1
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will:
Lead to even higher unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics - As many as 3.2 million American jobs will be at risk, with 1.4
million of those jobs being held by Hispanic (511,000) and African American (864,000) workers.
Reduce Incomes - Millions of Hispanic and Black families will have their incomes reduced, both in relative and absolute terms.
Growth in minority incomes will be stymied, and the recent gains in incomes made by both Blacks and Hispanics during the 1990s
will be lost.
Force families to pay higher prices - Minority families will be forced to pay higher energy costs (electricity and gasoline costs) and
consumer costs (food and housing.)
Cause fewer minority-owned businesses to be successful -Due to the difficulty that most minority businesses encounter in securing
capital, many of those businesses will be lost if energy costs increase.
Put more African-American and Hispanic families into poverty - Reduced wages, combined with inflationary price increases, will
mean even less discretionary spending for those already struggling to make ends meet.
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will prevent many minority families from realizing the American Dream. Many will be less
able to afford health insurance, buy a home, or send their children to college. In a time when more and more families will be forced to
look to government assistance to survive, the economic disruptions brought about by the Kyoto Protocol also will significantly reduce
state and local tax revenues. As in the 1970s, this squeeze on local and state government budgets will reduce the likelihood that
programs can be expanded to meet the increased need.
The economic boom of the late 1990s allowed many in the minority community to begin to heal the economic wounds left over from
the recession of the 1970s. Hispanic and African-American families, many of whom are just lifting themselves out of poverty, will
unfairly suffer the harsh reality of seeing those gains disappear if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented. Minority-owned small
businesses, many of them family-owned, also will feel economic pain if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented. Nearly 100 million
Blacks and Hispanics are projected to make up the American population in 2020. Their economic prosperity will be put at risk by a
treaty that exempts 80 percent of the nations of the world, and that many scientists can't even agree is necessary.

REDUCING COAL CONSUMPTION WILL CAUSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS PRIMARILY IN LOW
INCOME AND MINORITY POPULATIONS
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 22
From the first step of this framework, our review of the literature suggested that replacement of US coal-fueled power could impact
household income by about $125 to $225 billion in 2010. With one death for each $8.90 million in regulatory costs (assuming costs
are distributed proportionate to electricity use), this amount would induce about 14,000 to 25,000 additional deaths per year. Under
the equal-per-household allocation ($6.79 million per death), mortality impacts would range from about 18,000 to 33,000 additional
deaths per year. At the low end, under the income-proportional allocation ($18.54 million per death), induced deaths would range
from about 7,000 to 12,000 additional deaths per year. At the upper end of the studies reviewed -- $454 billion estimated from the
DRI (1998) analysis - the estimated induced deaths under an electricity-proportional assumption would be 51,000 lives in the year
2010.
These induced deaths fall disproportionately on lower-income households, as can be seen in Table 6. For example, assuming that
costs are distributed proportional to electricity consumption, households with income less than $15,000 (about 6.5 percent of all
households) would incur about 43 percent of the deaths. In contrast, those households with income over $50,000 (about 40.9% of all
households) would incur only about 8 percent of the deaths. Even though the lower-income households use less electricity their
consumption is relatively inelastic with respect to household income. Further, mortality sensitivity to reduced income is much greater
for these lower-income households, resulting in their incurring more of the deaths.
Since the income-induced deaths are disproportionately focused on the lower income groups, they also disproportionately fall upon
minorities. Each year the Census Bureau reports on poverty in the US. In the year 2000, the overall poverty rate dropped to 11.3
percent, a total of about 31.1 million people. The poverty rate was higher for blacks at 22.1 percent; for Hispanics it was 21.2 percent.




                                                                                                                                      22
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                                           Mandated Reductions in Coal Increase Deaths

REQUIRING REDUCTIONS IN COAL WILL INCREASE COSTS AND DEATHS
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 1-2
If coal use were curtailed, a combination of other generation sources and conservation options would have to be deployed in order to
maintain our nation's electricity generation capacity. Most of the existing coal-fueled facilities would be replaced by combined cycle
powerplants, fueled by more expensive natural gas. Higher fuel costs would result in higher costs for electricity, which would lead to
less disposable income for US residents to meet other household needs.
Numerous studies have indicated that reductions in disposable income result in higher health and safety risks and increased deaths. In
addition, regulatory proposals have the potential for increasing unemployment, and here too the literature documents linkages between
higher unemployment and the attendant risks to health and life expectation. This set of circumstances creates a fundamental issue for
evaluating proposed health and safety regulations that could significantly raise costs to the public. Simply put, are the potential
benefits of the proposed action in terms of expected lives saved greater than the detrimental consequences of the proposed actions in
terms of expected lives lost?

SUBSTANTIAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS HAVE A NET NEGATIVE IMPACT ON LIVES
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 4-5
Figure 1 sketches the relationship between the level of regulation and potential lives lost due to both a pollutant and the regulatory
costs. The curve labeled "A. Lives lost due to pollutant emissions" declines as higher levels of regulation reduce emissions and the
associated health and mortality effects. The curve labeled "B. Lives lost due to regulatory costs" increases as higher levels of
regulation entail increasingly higher costs of control The sum of the two curves (i.e. adding the y-values at each point along the x-
axis) is labeled "C. Net lives lost" and represents lives lost due to pollution plus lives lost due to the costs of regulation. As modest
regulations are introduced, they are likely to have a net beneficial health effect - since initial reductions in emissions can often be
made at a relatively low cost, the savings in lost lives due to emission reduction would likely be larger than the lives lost due to the
cost of the regulation. However, the lives lost may eventually exceed the lives saved as further reductions in emissions entail
increasingly higher costs. The main points of this illustration are that (1) if we are interested in reducing the number of overall lives
lost, then there are inherent tradeoffs that must be considered and (2) the minimum level of lives lost would very likely not be at either
regulatory extreme.




                                                                                                                                       23
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                                  Link: Environmental Regulations Impose Costs on Individuals

ALL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAWS IMPOSE BURDENS ON SOME GROUPS
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 792-3
   Environmental protection confers benefits and imposes burdens in several ways. n19 To the extent that the recipients of related
benefits and burdens are identical, no problem of discrimination is presented (there may, of course, be other problems with the
tradeoff). But identical recipients are rarely, if ever, the result. n20 Hardly any laws provide pareto [*793] optimality in the classic
sense of making everyone better off and no one worse off. n21 Virtually all laws have distributional consequences, including those
laws designed to further a particular conception of the public interest. n22 Problems of discrimination, therefore, may arise in the
disparities between the distribution of benefits and their related burdens. n23
   The benefits of environmental protection are obvious and significant. A reduction in pollution decreases the public health risks
associated with exposure to pollution. It also enhances public welfare by allowing greater opportunity for enjoyment of the amenities
associated with a cleaner natural environment. Many would also contend that environmental protection furthers the human spirit by
restoring balance between humankind and the natural environment. More pragmatically, environmental protection laws are the source
of new jobs in pollution control industries. EPA recently estimated, for instance, that the recently amended Clean Air Act would result
in the creation of 30,000 to 45,000 full-time equivalent positions during 1996-2000. n24
   The burdens of environmental protection range from the obvious to the more subtle. They include the economic costs borne by both
the producer and the consumer of goods and services that become more expensive as a result of environmental legislation. For
consumers, product and service prices may increase; some may become unavailable because the costs of environmental compliance
renders their production unprofitable; while other goods and services may be specifically banned because of their adverse impact on
the natural environment. For those persons who produce goods and services made more costly by environmental laws, personal
income may decrease, employment opportunities may be reduced or displaced, and certain employment opportunities may be
eliminated altogether. Finally, environmental protection requires governmental expenditures, the source of which varies from general
[*794] personal and corporate income taxes to special environmental taxes. n25 These expenditures necessarily decrease public
monies available for other social welfare programs.




                                                                                                                                     24
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                              Link: Environmental Regulations Violate Environmental Justice p. 1/2

SUCCESSFUL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MAY ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGE MINORITY
COMMUNITIES
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 795
  Inequities in the ultimate distribution of environmental protection benefits may also result, paradoxically, from environmental
improvement itself. A cleaner physical environment may increase property values to such an extent that members of a racial minority
with fewer economic resources can no longer afford to live in that community. n30 Indeed, the exclusionary impact of environmental
protection can be more than just an incidental effect; it can be the raison d'etre, with environmental quality acting as a socially
acceptable facade for attitudes that cannot be broadcast. n31

RACIAL MINORITIES DISTINCTLY DISADVANTAGED BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAWS
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 796
   To date, there has been relatively little systematic empirical investigation concerning the extent of inequity in the distribution of the
benefits and burdens of environmental protection. The evidence that is available, however, "lends support to the view that, on balance,
programs for environmental improvement promote the interests of higher-income groups more than those of the poor; they may well
increase the degree of inequality in the distribution of real income." n34
   There are especially few studies, apart from anecdotal accounts, regarding the specific issue that racial minorities are distinctly
disadvantaged by environmental protection laws. Those few studies, however, lend substantial credence to the claim that such
disadvantages do exist, and suggest some reasons for their occurrence. As summarized in a recent congressional report, "earlier studies
conducted by government agencies and non-profit environmental organizations have concluded that disproportionate effects stem
from many factors, including racism, inadequate health care, low-quality housing, high-hazard workplace environments, limited
access to environmental information, and simple lack of sufficient political power." n35 Without a doubt, the available evidence is
not immune from challenge. But for present purposes, it seems enough to suggest the strong possibility that virtually all of the
theoretical distributional inequities outlined earlier in this Article are in fact occurring.

POLLUTION CONTROLS ARE REGRESSIVE – IMPOSE COSTS ON POOR AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 799-800
  (a) Economic costs. - Economists have occasionally studied how the costs and benefits of pollution control are distributed. n44
These [*800] analyses generally suggest that pollution controls are regressive. As one commentator put it fairly early on,
"unfortunately, the further one moves towards ‗putting a price on pollution' the more regressive the burden generally becomes ...
When it comes to cleaning up the environment, policy makers will be confronted with the classical dilemma between distributional
fairness and allocative efficiency." n45
   Economists offer several explanations for this distributional phenomenon. Some speculate that many of the environmental amenities
guaranteed by protective legislation are available, as a practical matter, only to those with the wealth and time for their enjoyment.
Furthermore, even when the improved environment is itself a low-income residential area, the resulting economic value is not
necessarily captured by those living in the area but is more likely to be gained by absentee property owners who can subsequently
charge their tenants higher rent for living in a cleaner neighborhood. At the same time, higher product prices and displaced job
opportunities resulting from pollution control seem to have disproportionately adverse effects on persons with fewer economic
resources. n46 For example, much environmental land use regulation reduces the amount of land available for housing. This
reduction increases the price of both land and, therefore, housing, thus effectively reducing the amount of affordable housing available
to low-income persons. n47
   Few of these studies confront the race issue directly. One study that did concluded that distributional inequities existed along racial
lines in the distribution of the costs associated with water pollution control. The [*801]study's author found, specifically, that "whites
have a greater absolute burden, while nonwhites generally have a slightly greater proportional burden" in the distribution of such
costs. n48




                                                                                                                                         25
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                    ECONOMY TURN:
                             Link: Environmental Regulations Violate Environmental Justice p. 2/2

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS HAVE REGRESSIVE ECONOMIC COSTS
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. footnotes
  n41. See Michael Gelobter, Toward A Model of "Environmental Discrimination", in Michigan Conference Proceedings, supra note
37, at 92 ("all changes in exposure have been regressively distributed since 1970 (the year in which the Clean Air Act was adopted)");
F. Reed Johnson, Income Distributional Effects of Air Pollution Abatement: A General Equilibrium Approach, 8 Atlantic Econ. J. 10,
17 (1980) (While environmental policy "costs are approximately proportional to income," data from previous studies "tends to confirm
the supposition that environmental policy incidence is regressive, with only the top two income classes obtaining positive net
benefits.") (summarizing results of a Swedish study on the income distributional effects of air pollution control).

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS UNDERMINE PUBLIC HEALTH BY INCREASING ECONOMIC BURDENS ON
POOR PEOPLE
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. footnotes
  n45. Dorfman & Snow, supra note 44, at 115. Those who question the extent to which existing environmental laws promote
efficiency, however, would likely contend that those laws are, for that same reason, wrong-headed in both respects; that is, they
promote neither efficiency nor distributional fairness. The Office of Management and Budget and some federal judges, for instance,
have recently suggested that environmental laws actually undermine public health concerns because they make people poorer, and
"richer is safer." In other words, an individual with more economic resources (i.e., wealth) is likely to be more healthy than an
individual with fewer such resources. Hence, because environmental laws decrease economic wealth (or so proponents of this theory
assume), they simultaneously decrease public health. See, e.g., International Union v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
(Williams, J., concurring) ("higher income can secure better health, and there is no basis for a casual assumption that more stringent
regulation will always save lives"); Frank Swoboda, OMB's Logic: Less Protection Saves Lives; Letter Blocking Health Standards for
6 Million Workers Shocks Officials at Labor Dept., Wash. Post, Mar. 17, 1992, at A15; see also Frank Swoboda, OMB to Review
Standards of Health Covering 6 Million, Wash. Post, Mar. 26, 1992, at A19 ("OMB said it has not abandoned the idea that federal
agencies should be required to determine whether protective health standards harm more workers than they help.").




                                                                                                                                   26
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                                Links: Reducing Negative Externalities Undermines Growth p. 1/2

TURN: NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES INCREASE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Stefano Bartolini, University of Siena, Department of Economics, July 2003, University of Siena Economics Working Paper No.
390, Beyond Accumulation and Technological Progress: Negative externalities as an engine of economic growth,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=467002, p. 1
The overall thesis of this work is that the erosion of social and environmental capital due to negative externalities may not be a limit to
growth but may instead stimulate it. Hence negative externalities may be an engine to growth.
This statement is entirely at odds with the theory of endogenous growth, which emphasizes the role played in growth by positive
externalities. And it is also at odds with two other bodies of literature of relevance to this study, those on sustainable development and
on social capital.
The concept of sustainable development revolves around the doubts that began to arise in the second half of the last century
concerning the limits to growth imposed by the finiteness of natural resources. Such doubts can be summed up by the question:
Does the limits of the world in which we live impose limits on the expansion of economic activity, and how stringent are those limits?
The imprinting of this question on the sustainable development literature, and therefore on models of growth with environmental
resources, has impeded exploration of the possibility that the depletion of natural capital may be a stimulus for growth rather than
hampering it.
Nor has the literature on social capital ever considered the possibility that the erosion of the latter may not be a limit on growth but an
engine for it. In fact, such literature generally considers endowment of social capital to be an important factor in determining growth,
and that its erosion may damage the prospects of growth itself. This may perhaps be due to the imprinting of the concept of social
capital, which have been developed to take account of the importance of socio-cultural factors for development, enabling explanation
of why the market system performs so differently in countries similar from the point of view of endowments and technology.

NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES ARE A MAJOR ENGINE OF GROWTH
Stefano Bartolini, University of Siena, Department of Economics, July 2003, University of Siena Economics Working Paper No.
390, Beyond Accumulation and Technological Progress: Negative externalities as an engine of economic growth,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=467002p. 8
The other explanation of these anomalies - the one based on negative externalities which reduce social and environmental capital-has
been presented in a number of recent articles. According to this approach, the theoretical and empirical difficulties of growth theory
are due to the fact that it fails to consider that well-being and productive capacity depend largely on goods that are not purchased in
the market but are furnished by the social and natural environment. The growth process generates extensive negative externalities
which reduce the capacity of the environment to furnish such goods. These negative externalities may be the tertium movens of
growth given the capacity of the market to supply costly substitutes for the diminishing free goods. If agents can purchase substitutes
for free resources they will react to the decline in their well-being or in their productivity capacity by increasing their use of goods
purchased in the market. Negative externalities force individuals increasingly to rely on private goods in order to prevent a decline in
their well-being or productive capacity. In this way they contribute to an increase in output. This feeds back into the negative
externalities, giving rise to a further diminution in free goods to which agents react by increasing output, and so on. A self-reinforcing
mechanism thus operates whereby growth generates negative externalities and negative externalities generate growth. Hence growth
takes the form of a process of substitution whereby free final (or intermediate) goods are progressively replaced with costly goods in
the consumption (or production) patterns of individuals.




                                                                                                                                        27
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                                Links: Reducing Negative Externalities Undermines Growth p. 2/2

NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES VITAL TO CONTINUED ECONOMIC GROWTH
Stefano Bartolini, University of Siena, Department of Economics, July 2003, University of Siena Economics Working Paper No.
390, Beyond Accumulation and Technological Progress: Negative externalities as an engine of economic growth,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=467002, p. 9
According to these GASP (Growth as Substitution Process) models, the two anomalies of growth theory are two sides of the same
coin. People strive so much for money because they have to defend themselves against negative externalities: they work so much and
save so much in order to substitute - in the present and in the future - free goods with costly ones. But an increase in their income
does not improve their happiness because it involves a process of substitution. These negative externalities are the factor motivating
people to strive so much for the money that growth theory has failed to identify.

NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES DRIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Stefano Bartolini, University of Siena, Department of Economics, July 2003, University of Siena Economics Working Paper No.
390, Beyond Accumulation and Technological Progress: Negative externalities as an engine of economic growth,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=467002, p. 22
The second kind of negative externalities are those which reduce free goods. Some recent models, both evolutionary or with
optimizing agents, show the role of these externalities as an engine of growth. This approach emphasizes that the growth process
generates extensive negative externalities which reduce the capacity of the social and natural environment to furnish free goods. In
these models individuals have increasingly to rely on private goods in order to prevent a reduction in their well-being or in their
productive capacity due to decline in social and natural capital. This generates an increase in output which feeds back into the
negative externalities, giving rise to a self-reinforcing mechanism whereby growth generated negative externalities and negative
externalities generate growth.

NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES CREATE PERPETUAL GROWTH CYCLE
Angelo Antoci and Stefano Bartolini, Instituto Economico ed Aziendale, University of Sassari & University of Siena,
Department of Economics, 1999, Negative externalities as the engine of growth in an evolutionary context,
http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/81692A9E-344C-4886-8EA3-503D27F073DB/134/8399.pdf
In this model welfare depends on three goods: leisure, a free environmental renewable resource, and a non-storable output. The
environmental resource is subject to negative externalities, that is, it is deteriorated by the production of the output. Faced with a
forced reduction of the resource, agents may react by increasing the labor supply in order to produce and consume substitutes for the
diminishing resource, i.e., they can raise their defensive expenditures. The increase in production and consumption that follows, i.e.,
growth, generates a further deterioration of the environmental resource, thus giving rise to a self-feeding growth process.

INCREASED NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES INCREASE ECONOMIC GROWTH
Angelo Antoci and Stefano Bartolini, Instituto Economico ed Aziendale, University of Sassari & University of Siena,
Department of Economics, 1999, Negative externalities as the engine of growth in an evolutionary context,
http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/81692A9E-344C-4886-8EA3-503D27F073DB/134/8399.pdf
Hence, in our case the core of the growth mechanism is a substitution process based on the destruction of non-market goods, in the
sense that growth is fuelled by a diminution in free consumptions and by its substitution with costly ones. In other words, in our case
growth is driven by its own destructive power. Note that this is true in the full sense in the model. The predictions are that the higher
is the environmental impact of production and the lower is the endowment of the resource, more likely growth will take place.

NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF GROWTH
Angelo Antoci and Stefano Bartolini, Instituto Economico ed Aziendale, University of Sassari & University of Siena,
Department of Economics, 1999, Negative externalities as the engine of growth in an evolutionary context,
http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/81692A9E-344C-4886-8EA3-503D27F073DB/134/8399.pdf
According to Hirsh (1976) growth in advanced economies is largely due to an increase in defensive consumption, that is, the
consumption induced by the negative externalities produced by growth, which is similar to the concept used here of substitute
consumption. The notion of defensive consumption was then taken up in the debate on corrections to GNP in order to improve it as an
index of welfare. The literature on defensive consumption contains a large number of interesting examples, but the idea that seems to
inspire all authors, and Hirsh in particular, is that reactions to a situation of general decay may be very general. Individuals can
compensate for deterioration in everything that is public with concern for everything that is private, giving rise to the contrast typical
of "affluent societies" (Galbraith's well-known observation).




                                                                                                                                       28
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                        ECONOMY TURN:
                                                    Links: Nuclear Power Costly

NUCLEAR POWER WILL REQUIRE MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES – DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY
Datan, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, et al ‘99 (―Nuclear Energy: We Know Better Now,‖ presented by
Felicity Hill, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hinonproliferationtreaty/99-npt-ngo7-hill.html)
Economics
Nuclear energy is heavily subsidised for political reasons. On Capital Hill in the United States the estimate for the money spent on
building reactors that has not yet been recovered is USD $600 billion. When faced with such enormous figures, in this case a 600
billion opportunity cost, we must wonder what renewable, clean, and democratic forms of energy could have been created with such
resources. To give an example, $1.7 billion was spent on doing a feasibility study of a waste repository site at Yucca Mountain in the
US, whereas 1.9 billion of public funds was spent on solar energy research between 1970 and 1994.
So has nuclear electricity been "too cheap to meter" as the early propaganda predicted? The answer is no. In many countries nuclear
power requires direct taxpayer subsidy to be viable. In the United States, where a nearly one quarter of the currently operating reactors
are located, electric utility restructuring is subjecting nuclear power to customer choice and competition for the first time. Nuclear
power averages at up to 12 cents a kilowatt hour in the US, whereas natural gas and wind turbines are both delivering electricity
consistently as low as 3 cents a kilowatt hour - one quarter of the cost.
Industrialised countries are all phasing out nuclear energy facilities or planning to do so, due to well informed community opposition
in the north. The energy assistance offered to the global south by industrialised countries, under the pretext of honouring inalienable
rights, is actually debt producing, and has the function of maintaining the wealth of large corporations from the north who have not
converted their priorities or technology when faced with the hard economic facts of their industry. We see this in the marketing
offensive, especially directed at Asia and former Soviet republics at this time.




                                                                                                                                      29
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                                   Link: Technology Mandates/RPS Increases Electricity Costs

EMISSIONS REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND TECHNOLOGY MANDATES INCREASE ENERGY COSTS
Paul Oakley, Executive Director Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, June 2, 2003, ―CARE Letter to Senate Leaders
Urges Energy Bill Without Mandates‖, http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=64
An energy plan cannot be effective if it is burdened with mandates that would increase energy costs and restrict energy supplies. Any
proposals to S. 14 that would impose mandatory federal regulation of greenhouse gases, or carbon dioxide emissions, or mandate
greenhouse gas emissions reporting, or require the use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity must be defeated.

PUSHING RENEWABLES THROUGH SUBSIDIES AND/OR RPS WILL DEVASTATE US ECONOMY
Facts on File, 1997, Renewable Energy: An in-depth analysis—Cost of renewables criticized, , http://www.facts.com/icof/cost.htm
In April 1995, the CEED released a report entitled "Energy Choices in a Competitive Era: The Role of Renewable and Traditional
Energy Resources in America's Electric Generation Mix," which was prepared by Resource Data International, Inc. (RDI). A key
finding of the report was that using subsidies and mandates to increase nonhydroelectric renewable energy production in the U.S.
would exact a heavy toll on the economy. To double renewables' share of the electricity market by 2010, some $52 billion in subsidies
(including those deriving from mandates) would need to be expended, according to the report.

RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES NOT ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., National Center for Policy Analysis, 2003, Why renewable energy is not cheap and not green,
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew.html
A multibillion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted
in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. While previous renewable capacity built with liberal
government subsidies is widely acknowledged to have been uneconomic and is at risk with falling electricity prices, future renewable
capacity will be challenged by the rapidly falling costs and prices of traditional sources. Improved new-generation renewable capacity
is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus
electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more costly than this average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and
geothermal projects are not as uneconomic. The cost of wind power comes close to the average, although certain prime projects with
high economies of scale are cheaper. Only ideal virgin geothermal sites and selected upgrades at existing renewable sites are economic
for new capacity under current technology and market prices.

INCREASED PRICE OF RENEWABLES WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT
Facts on File, 1997, Renewable Energy: An in-depth analysis—Cost of renewables criticized, , http://www.facts.com/icof/cost.htm
Today, most modern coal-fired electricity plants can produce electricity for as low as four cents per kwh and with less pollution than
ever before, coal-industry officials claim. The same amount of power can be generated from natural gas for about two to three cents.
In comparison, even the most efficient wind and solar technologies produce energy that costs around five to seven cents per kwh.
Although the difference in cost appears to be just pennies, those price differences can have a huge impact on an economy such as the
U.S., where more than three trillion kwh of electric energy are generated annually.




                                                                                                                                     30
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                                  Link: Energy Efficiency/Conservation Mandates Hurt the Poor

ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES AND CARS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE POOR
Michael Gelobter, Assistant Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, 1994, Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 841, p. 843
   A longer-term impact of this phenomenon is to lengthen the capital replacement cycle faced by low-income families for their most
basic goods. Energy efficient appliances and cleaner-burning cars are good for the environment. But the regulatory mandates that
created markets for them have also pushed the replacement costs of these goods beyond the reach of many low-income communities,
n9 thus relegating them to facing continued high costs for energy and transportation. n10

BILLIONS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON CONSERVATION SO FAR
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., National Center for Policy Analysis, 2003, Why renewable energy is not cheap and not green,
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew.html
"Negawatts" (a termed coined by energy conservation guru Amory Lovins to describe the potential of conservation as a resource) in
place of megawatts has become a multibillion dollar taxpayer- and ratepayer-subsidized industry. Between 1989 and 1995, the nation's
utilities spent an estimated $13.7 billion on ratepayer-subsidized electricity conservation programs (known in the industry as "demand-
side management," or DSM). Adding pre-1989 expenditures (DSM programs began as early as the mid-1970s), the total is around $16
billion in today's dollars.225 The U.S. Department of Energy has spent $8 billion to $9 billion out of its total conservation expenditures
of $12.4 billion on state and federal electric-usage reductions programs since inception.226

STATE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS NOT FEASIBLE – TOO COSTLY
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., National Center for Policy Analysis, 2003, Why renewable energy is not cheap and not green,
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew.html
Environmental tradeoffs aside, economic problems threaten the future of utility-provided, ratepayer-subsidized DSM. The law of
diminishing returns suggests that the supply of negawatts is a "depletable" resource. Declining benefit/cost ratios of utility DSM
programs are a fact of life in California,231 not to mention other states. The debate is really one about how great the cost savings
overestimates have been, not how much cost-effective energy conservation really remains. Of note are two particularly rigorous
studies published by the Illinois Commerce Commission and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the Department of
Energy.232 The former examined the full costs of state DSM-type programs for natural gas from their inception in 1985 through 1994.
The commission found no program in which benefits exceeded costs.233 In fact, most programs demonstrated benefits that were only a
mere 25 percent of costs. The latter study examined the total costs and benefits of DSM programs nationwide. The EIA concluded that
from 1991 to 1995 approximately $12 billion (nominal) was spent on DSM programs that yielded 215.6 billion kilowatt hours of
energy savings. The cost of DSM programs over that period averaged 5.58 cents per kilowatt hour, but fossil fuels produced electricity
at 2.35 cents per kilowatt hour. Thus, subsidized energy conservation was twice as expensive as generated power.234

SUBSIDIES TO PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION COUNTERPRODUCTIVE DUE TO PRICE REDUCTION
Robert L. Bradley, Jr., National Center for Policy Analysis, 2003, Why renewable energy is not cheap and not green,
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew.html
Because of the precarious economics of acceptable renewable energies, eco-energy planners have turned to taxpayer and ratepayer
subsidies for energy conservation as an alternative means to constrain the use of fossil fuels. Yet fundamental problems exist here as
well. Multibillion-dollar taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies over two decades have resulted in severely diminished returns for future
conservation investments. The potential price reduction from electric industry restructuring threatens to lengthen the payout period of
energy conservation investments to worsen this problem.




                                                                                                                                       31
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                      ECONOMY TURN:
                      Internal Link: Higher Electricity Prices Disproportionately Harms Minorities p. 1/3

INCREASED ELECTRICITY PRICES KILL - DISPROPORTIONATELY BURDEN MINORITIES
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. ES-2
The analyses of the relationship between loss of disposable income and the resultant deaths indicate that a regulatory cost of $6.8 to
$18.5 million reduces one additional adult death. Where these costs are related primarily to electricity use, we estimate that a
regulatory cost of about $8.9 million induces one additional adult death. Hence, a reduction in disposable income of about $125 to
$225 billion in the year 2010 could be expected to induce 14 to 25 thousand deaths.
Mortality impacts induced by the loss of disposable income are highly concentrated in lower income groups, and as such also
disproportionately affect certain minority groups. Assuming costs are distributed proportional to electricity consumption, households
with income under $15,000 (about 16.5% of all households) would incur about 43% of the deaths. In contrast, those households with
income over $50,000 (about 40.9% of all households) would incur only about 9% of the deaths.

INCREASED ENERGY PRICES DISPROPORTIONATELY HURT MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2001, Can‘t hide national energy problems says American Association of Blacks in
Energy, http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=11
"If the economy starts to contract, the first to feel the effects usually are the minority and low-income families. Last winter was a
prime example of that. When natural gas and propane prices soared for nearly all the country, minority and low-income families were
hit the hardest by higher heating bills," Gladney said.
He added that low-income households spent 14 percent of their income on energy in 2000, while the national household average was
4.8 percent, up a percentage point from 1999.

MINORITIES MOST LIKELY TO BE HURT BY INCREASING ENERGY PRICES
Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, 2005, New Study Provides Insight into Environmental Policy Debate, 2004,
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=60
"Minorities cannot afford to ignore energy policy issues," says Harry C. Alford, President/CEO of the National Black Chamber of
Commerce. "Minority households and small business owners already pay higher per capita energy costs; so when costs go up,
minorities are more likely to be hurt the hardest. Raising awareness both within our communities and among policy makers is
something we must do if we are to continue our focus on increasing empowerment opportunities."

1970s EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT POLICIES WHICH RAISE ENERGY PRICES WILL
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARM MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Center for Energy and Economic Development, 2000, Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes: how the Kyoto Protocol would
disproportionately threaten the economic well being of blacks and Hispanic in the US,
http://64.78.186.137/docs/Refusing_to_Repeat1.pdf, p. 3
During the recession that followed the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s, or nation learned an important lesson. Our entire economy
was disrupted because of skyrocketing energy costs. Widespread unemployment, record-high interest rates, and rapid inflation
plagued all Americans. In 1973, consumer prices rose 10 percent in just one year, making it harder and harder for minority working
families to make ends meet. While Americans suffered the economic malaise of the 1970s, the negative effect was much greater in
America's minority communities. Things were so bad for minorities that in December 1993, Ebony published an article entitled
"Inflation in the Ghetto: A Poor Man's Survival Kit," and a US News and World Report feature from February 1974 discussed how
non-whites were among those most likely to be unemployed because of the downturn in the economy.
From that experience, we know that energy taxes or any other means of raising energy costs will have a regressive effect on society - a
disproportionately negative impact on those least likely to be able to afford to pay higher costs. As energy prices increase, the costs
for food, clothing, and other basic necessities also increase. The recent spike in gasoline prices confirms that this as true today as it
was in the 1970s.




                                                                                                                                      32
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                       Internal Link: Higher Electricity Prices Disproportionately Harms Minorities p. 2/3

HIGHER ENERGY COSTS FROM KYOTO-STYLE REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY
HARM MINORITIES
Center for Energy and Economic Development, 2000, Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes: how the Kyoto Protocol would
disproportionately threaten the economic well being of blacks and Hispanic in the US,
http://64.78.186.137/docs/Refusing_to_Repeat1.pdf, p. 4-5
Rarely have economic analyses been performed to determine the specific impact of a proposed government regulation on America's
Hispanic and African-American communities. Studies are conducted and economic models are run, but they generally focus only on
the macroeconomic (big picture) effects. Policymakers fail to recognize that the higher energy costs that will result if the Kyoto
Protocol is implemented will disproportionately harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement of
millions of US Blacks and Hispanics at risk.
Minority families have less discretionary income to cover the increased energy and consume costs that even the federal government's
own independent energy forecasting agency says will result form implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Some policymakers haven't
considered that Hispanic and Black workers often suffer form the "last hired/first fired" syndrome, and therefore will be among the
first American workers to lose their jobs as American businesses become less competitive due to increased energy costs. The nation's
leading independent economic research firms, such as Standard and Poor's Data Resources International and the Wharton Economic
Forecasting Associates, indicate that between 1.5 and 3.2 million American jobs will be lost if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented,
with many of those being jobs held by minority workers. These communities have been hardest hit in past recessions, and anything
that slows economic growth now will stall or reverse the progress made by Blacks and Hispanics over the past decade.

ECONOMIC HARMS OF INCREASED ENERGY PRICES RESULTING FROM REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS WILL
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARM MINORITIES
Center for Energy and Economic Development, 2000, Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes: how the Kyoto Protocol would
disproportionately threaten the economic well being of blacks and Hispanic in the US,
http://64.78.186.137/docs/Refusing_to_Repeat1.pdf, p. 9-10
Despite a prolonged period of unprecedented economic growth in American, African-Americans and Hispanics have not enjoyed the
same level of economic advancements as their White peers.
For example:
Income - Black family income is 36 percent below the national average, and Hispanic family income is 39 percent below the national
average.
Unemployment - The unemployment rate for Hispanics and Blacks is nearly twice the national average, and those who are employed
generally have less job security than White employees.
Poverty - Currently, both Hispanic and Black families are three times more likely to fall below the poverty line than White families.
Discretionary Income - More African-American and Hispanic families are forced to devote a greater share of their earnings to housing
and other necessities, leaving them much less for discretionary spending.
Vulnerable in Times of Recession - Both Hispanic and Black families, on average, are much more vulnerable to financial hardship
during times of economic downturn.
For these reasons, African-American and Hispanic communities will be disproportionately hurt by economic consequences likely to
occur if the Kyoto Protocol is implemented in the United States.

LOWER INCOME SEGMENTS DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMED BY HIGHER ELECTRICITY COSTS
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 13
The question next arises as to how the economic costs might be distributed among the population. Why is this important to our
analysis? It matters because lower-income segments of our society are more vulnerable to the income-related health and mortality
effects of reductions in disposable income. For high-income individuals, higher electricity costs will be small relative to their overall
income, and may result in little if any change in expenditures that enhance health and safety. Lower-income individuals, on the other
hand, spend a much higher fraction of their income for energy, despite lower per-capita energy consumption. Higher electricity costs
therefore would cut more deeply into the disposable income of lower-income individuals, displacing other health- and safety-related
expenditures.




                                                                                                                                       33
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                       Internal Link: Higher Electricity Prices Disproportionately Harms Minorities p. 3/3

ELECTRICITY AND GAS PRICES ESSENTIAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF CONSUMERS
Gwendolyn D. Prioleau, Chair, Legislative Issues and Public Policy Committee, American Association of Blacks in Energy,
2000, "The Impact of Energy Restructuring on Small and Minority Customer Groups,"
http://www.aabe.org/publications/documents/impact.html
First and foremost, we all understand that electricity and gas service are essential to the health and welfare of the average consumer.
Electricity and natural gas provide light, heat and air conditioning to our homes, schools, hospitals, and other buildings that we visit or
inhabit on a daily basis. Certainly, the average residential consumer is entirely dependent on utilities, which traditionally provided
electricity and natural gas to their homes. Residential customers are among the least sophisticated in ability to understand energy
industry terms and practices. Residential customers expect energy to be available on demand.




                                                                                                                                        34
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                               Internal Link: Minorities More Vulnerable to the Costs of Regulation

MINORITIES MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE ECONOMIC HARMS OF REGULATION
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 795-6
   Minorities may at the same time incur a share of the burdens of environmental protection that are disproportionate to those benefits
that they receive. Higher product and service prices may be regressive, as may some taxes depending on their form. n32 Although
whites are poorer in greater absolute numbers than nonwhites, the latter group is disproportionately poorer in terms of population
percentages. Minorities may also more likely be the victims of reduced or eliminated job opportunities. Similarly, they may be less
likely to enjoy the economic, educational, or personal positions necessary to exploit the new job opportunities that environmental
protection creates. n33 Finally, [*796]minorities may receive an unfair share of the environmental risks that are redistributed by
environmental protection. Elimination of the risks in one location may result in the creation or increase of risks in another location
where the exposure to minorities is greater.

MINORITIES MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY THE COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 808-9
   In addition, persons with fewer economic means frequently conclude that they cannot afford the "luxury" of declining available
work, notwithstanding the environmental risks associated with the job. At the [*809] same time, when jobs are displaced because of
pollution control costs, those with less seniority are the ones most likely to lose their jobs. Minorities typically make up a
disproportionately large percentage of those employees with lower seniority. n89 Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that
minorities are also less likely to be in a position to obtain the more highly skilled employment opportunities that are created in the
pollution control industry n90 or in other jobs becoming available as the nation shifts away from a dependency on smokestack
technologies. n91

COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FALL DISPROPORTIONATELY ON THE POOR AND MINORITIES
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 799
  2. The Burdens of Environmental Protection. - The burdens associated with environmental protection generally take two forms.
First, there are the economic costs of pollution control. These are typically imposed on either the government or industry in the first
instance, but are ultimately redistributed through taxes and higher prices for consumer goods. They may also be indirectly
redistributed through salary cuts and layoffs. Second, as previously described, there are the burdens of environmental risks that are
necessarily redistributed by environmental protection laws. Although these laws strive for a net reduction of risks, some discrete
populations may suffer a net increase in the process.
   The "burden" dimension to environmental protection has received significantly more attention than the "benefit" side. Additionally,
until quite recently most studies addressing the distribution of environmental protection burdens have focused on the economic costs
associated with such protection. Less attention has been paid to the distribution of environmental risks.
   Most of the studies lend considerable support to the thesis that distributional inequities exist insofar as the distribution of burdens
may be regressive. Moreover, to the extent that these studies have specifically considered the distributional effects upon racial
minorities, preliminary inquiries strongly suggest that inequities exist there as well.

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY ACCOUNTS FOR RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN HEALTH AND LIFE EXPECTANCY
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 808
    In any event, powerful vestiges of generations of racist policies plainly persist, and these vestiges are self-perpetuating. n83 As a
result of racist laws and attitudes extending back to slavery itself, racial minorities today possess significantly less power both in the
marketplace and in the political fora, particularly at the national level. This absence of economic and political clout makes it much
more probable that racial minorities will receive an unfavorably disproportionate share of the benefits (less) and burdens (more) of
living in society, n84 including those associated with environmental protection. n85 For example, the absence of economic
resources compounds the threat of distributional inequities associated with environmental protection. Because those with fewer
economic resources are disproportionately affected adversely by across-the-board price increases, such individuals are also more
likely to suffer greater economic harm when prices rise because of environmental protection. The economic plight of many minority
communities also confines its members as a practical matter to the less healthy residential areas which are, for that reason, less
expensive to live in. n86 This confinement also creates the potential for what some have dubbed "environmental blackmail," n87 as
the community finds it more difficult to oppose the siting of a facility that, notwithstanding significant environmental risks, offers the
possibility of immediate short-term economic relief. n88



                                                                                                                                        35
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                     ECONOMY TURN:
                            Internal Link: Personal Wealth Key to Quality and Length of Lives p. 1/2

PERSONAL WEALTH KEY TO QUALITY AND LENGTH OF LIFE
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. ES-1
It is now widely recognized that wealthier individuals are more likely to live safer, healthier, and longer lives. With more income,
individuals tend to spend more on health care for themselves and their children, purchase more safety equipment, eat a more nutritious
diet, and take other actions that decrease the likelihood of premature death by illness accident. Consistent with this fact, individual
reductions in disposable income tend to increase health and safety risks and the resulting deaths. Similarly, higher unemployment has
been shown to have an adverse effect on safety, health and longevity.

WEALTHIER IS HEALTHIER
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 2
It is well documented that people in wealthier countries live longer, and that many impoverished countries suffer from shorter average
life spans. Additionally, wealthier individuals within a country live longer on average than poorer individuals. In the 1980s, the noted
political scientist Aaron Wildavsky clearly formulated the concept of "richer is safer" (or "wealthier is healthier"), which is echoed in
the World Resources Institute's recognition that the "relationship between health and wealth holds true for individuals as well as for
countries." Two decades of further research have upheld and extended this concept. According to Brenner (2002), the most
widespread and strongest research finding in the field of medical population statistics is that the higher the social and economic status
of the person (holding age and sex constant), the lower the probability of illness and mortality.
In essence, the link between wealth and health relies on two facts. First, when individuals incur the costs of regulatory actions -
whether through higher prices or taxes, or through lower wages, dividends, or stock prices - less of their income is available for other
purposes. Second, individuals use additional disposable income in ways that on average reduce their health and safety risks and
therefore reduce deaths. When regulatory costs reduce the disposable income available for other purposes, they can increase other
health and safety risks to individuals.

MANY MECHANISMS BY WHICH WEALTH EQUALS HEALTH
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 2-3
There are many mechanisms that support the richer-is-safer and wealthier-is-healthier concepts. Some are directly due to individuals'
actions and others are due to societal action. A few examples:
--When individuals have less disposable income, on average the following occur: nutrition is typically poorer, babies will have less
prenatal health care, adults may forgo physical exams and preventative medical expenses (e.g. pap smears) and postpone safety
purchases (e.g. home fire alarms), and individuals will not attend smoking clinics to stop smoking or spend as much to reduce stress
(hire babysitters or pursue recreation).
-- A general increase in the standard of living influences societal structure. Health and safety are improved via social mechanisms
such as education. With more disposable income, students from poor families will more likely complete high school and attend
college. Better education changes both one's knowledge about what is safe and health and one's practice to pursue them. For
example, sanitary procedures are improved, homes are "child-proofed" to reduce accidents, and more people start wearing seat belts.
--A wealthier society leads to the development of a better and more diverse medical research establishment, to larger markets to
stimulate creation of safer products, to an infrastructure of health clubs and many opportunities for exercise, and to the societal
resilience to rapidly and efficiently attack new unforeseen problems threatening our collective health and safety.
--A recent report by the World Health Organization found that for 167 countries in 1997, health expenditures were determined mainly
by national income, and that each one percent rise in national income led to slightly more than a one percent rise in health spending.
The fact that additional disposable income is used in ways that on average reduce the mortality risks of individuals applies to
statistical averages and not necessarily to any specific individual whose behavior and risks contribute to those averages. For some
individuals, additional income facilitates riskier and/or unhealthier activities. However, over broad populations the pattern is clear.




                                                                                                                                      36
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                    ECONOMY TURN:
                           Internal Link: Personal Wealth Key to Quality and Length of Lives p. 2/2

LOWER INCOME INCREASES CHILDHOOD MORTALITY
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 26
From these studies, it appears that there may also be significant child mortality impacts stemming from lower income. Accordingly,
the mortality estimates developed in the preceding section may be conservative in that we have focused only on adult deaths.
However, the analysis of these child mortality impacts is more complex and more uncertain, so we have chosen at this time not to
quantify potential additional deaths. However, the potential magnitude of these impacts suggests this areas as an important one for
future research.




                                                                                                                                  37
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                                           Internal Link: Increased Unemployment Kills

REGULATIONS KILL AND CAUSE INJURY BY INCREASING UNEMPLOYMENT
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 5
Similarly, should the increased regulation lead to greater unemployment, additional adverse health impacts can arise. Unemployment
can increase both in the industries directly affected by the regulations as well as economy-wide effects from the reductions in
disposable income. There are many studies in the literature relating increased unemployment with higher levels of illness, death,
crime and violence. While far fewer people are directly affected by increased unemployment than by the reductions in disposable
income, the magnitude of the effects on an individual unemployed worker and his or her family tends to be significant.

UNEMPLOYMENT EFFECTS FROM REDUCED COAL CONSUMPTION HAVE MORTALITY IMPACTS
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. ES-2
Unemployment-induced deaths. Increases in unemployment stemming from replacing coal-fueled power can have mortality
consequences. Studies have examined the linkages between unemployment and health mortality. These studies have concluded that
increases in unemployment result in adverse effects such as cardiovascular mortality, stroke, violence, and suicide. The changes in
mortality rates are seen to extend for several years following the changes in employment status.

UNEMPLOYMENT KILLS
Daniel E. Klein and Ralph L. Keeney, Twenty-First Strategies, LLC, Research Professor Duke University, December, 2002,
Mortality Reductions From Use of Low-Cost Coal-Fueled Power: An Analytical Framework,
http//www.nationalbcc.org/downloads/kkmr.pdf, p. 28
Brenner (2002). In a three-year study commissioned by the European Union, Brenner (2002) examined data over a 30-year period,
investigating whether changes in the employment rate influenced mortality patterns in European countries and the United States. The
multiple regression model incorporated terms designed to measure different lag effects in the mortality data, and also to control for the
effects of economic growth apart from the unemployment changes. Brenner found that increased employment provided important
benefits to population health. These decreased mortality benefits were seen in some countries to be nearly contemporaneous, although
the mortality reduction could extend over a decade. Brenner found that increased employment rates towards a "full employment"
economy are fundamental sources of decreased mortality in European Union countries and the United States. Conversely, increased
rates of unemployment are related to heightened mortality rates and thus decreased life expectancy in these countries. While growth
in per capita wealth was seen to be the principal long-term factor in the trend in mortality decline, higher unemployment rates also
exerted an independent and damaging effect on national health.




                                                                                                                                      38
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                      ECONOMY TURN:
                              AT: Minorities Have the Most to Gain from Environmental Regulations

REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE POLLUTION DO NOT HAVE THE EXPECTED BENEFITS FOR MINORITY
COMMUNITIES
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 796-7
  1. Benefits of Environmental Protection. - The reduction of pollution mandated by environmental protection laws is likely to have
the greatest potential for a redistribution that is favorable to minority communities. After all, for the same reasons that minorities may
disproportionately be the recipients of redistributed environmental risks, they also were more likely subject to greater pollution in the
first instance. There is substantial support for the thesis that minorities have historically been more likely to live in closer proximity to
polluting industries than nonminorities. n36 There is likewise substantial evidence that minorities occupy [*797] significantly more
environmentally hazardous jobs and, as a result, suffer a disproportionately higher number of environmentally-related injuries. n37
[*798]However, for these same reasons, any across-the-board reduction in pollution (or increase in occupational safety) should confer
on minorities a larger benefit commensurate with their historically larger burden. n38
   It is not at all certain, however, that this expected proportional redressing of the past has in fact occurred. Without addressing the
factor of race, several empirical studies have suggested that the distribution of benefits from a reduction in pollution is neutral or even
regressive. n39 These benefits include federal subsidies to publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants, n40 and the advantages of
better air pollution control, n41 [*799]including those associated with programs directed at improving urban air quality. n42 A
similar conclusion has been drawn regarding the impact of federal occupational health and safety laws. n43




                                                                                                                                          39
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                       ECONOMY TURN:
                                                      AT—Aff Increases Jobs

JOB CREATION THROUGH NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS BIASED TOWARDS WHITES
Michael Gelobter, Assistant Professor, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, 1994, Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 841, p. 843
  Social injustice in environmental protection is also evident and well documented. Environmental organizations - governmental,
non-governmental, and private sector - are overwhelmingly staffed by upper middle-class whites. n11 Beyond the occupations
generated directly by private sector environmental organizations, the majority of jobs created by environmental protection in trade,
manufacturing, and service industries have redounded to the white community in the United States, while the (relatively small)
numbers of jobs lost have disproportionately impacted minorities. n12 [*844]




                                                                                                                                   40
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                        ECONOMY TURN:
                                                      AT: Aff Prevents Pollution

POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS JUST SHIFT POLLUTION TO ANOTHER FORM
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 794-5
   Nor does the purported prevention of pollution, as opposed to its treatment, necessarily eliminate the distributional issue. "Pollution
prevention" frequently depends upon production processes that reduce one kind of pollution by increasing another. n29 For example,
water pollution [*795] may increase as air pollution is decreased, or a decrease in the mining of one kind of natural resource may be
limited or completely offset by the increase in mining of another. Such shifts in the type of pollution or activity allowed will almost
invariably shift those risks arising with the "new" pollution or activity to different persons. Hence, pollution may decrease for society
as a whole, yet simultaneously increase for certain subpopulations.




                                                                                                                                       41
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                    ECONOMY TURN:
                                 AT: Minority Groups that Agree with Us are not Representative

RACIST, IGNORES COMPLEXITIES OF THE ISSUE
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 6
However, the standard environmental justice framework of powerless Indian tribe and corrupt tribal leadership as unwitting victim to
a corrupt company bent on destroying the ecological balance of sacred tribal land does not do justice to the true complexity and the
history of the players in this region. It should be understood that Skull Valley landscape, Tooele County and the State of Utah more
broadly, already reflects years of environmental exploitation rendered by federal, state, and county governments. Having witnessed
and suffered Tooele County‘s history of environmental colonialism, the Skull Valley Goshute tribal leaders realize that Utah
politicians adamantly oppose the PFS project for political rather than ecological reasons. In addition the Skull Valley conflict gives
rise to challenging questions for environmental justice movement and how to account for calls for tribal rights to exercise sovereignty.




                                                                                                                                     42
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
          EMISSIONS TRADING/MARKET MECHANISMS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 1/4

--market inadequate to address questions of social justice
MARKET MECHANISMS TO REDUCE POLLUTION – LIKE EMISSIONS TRADING – FAIL TO ADDRESS
DISTRIBUTIONAL ISSUES IN POLLUTION CONTROL
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 81-2
As the 1990s come to a close, market-based approaches and environmental justice have emerged as two of the most innovative
concepts in environmental policy. These concepts have expanded the environmental movement to address both economics and civil
rights, with broad-based political support including President Clinton. n1 Until recently, market-based approaches and
environmental justice have co-existed peacefully in their separate realms of environmental policy. The intersection of these two
concepts, however, was inevitable. As the environmental justice movement matured, its focus expanded from hazardous waste
facility sitings and contamination to other types of environmental impacts, such as air pollution. n2 Naturally, market-based
approaches such as emission trading permits came under scrutiny by the environmental justice movement as the most recent policy
innovation in air pollution control. Environmental justice advocates were particularly concerned with the efficacy of the market [*82]
as a method to distribute environmental burdens and benefits. Traditional economic analysis assumes a level playing field as a
precondition to the market. n3 Yet real world intersections of income, race, gender, and other factors tilt the playing field in certain
groups' favor. Because of such real world inequities, environmental justice advocates have begun to argue that market-based
approaches cannot fairly distribute environmental quality.

--emissions trading creates toxic hot spots
PERMIT SYSTEMS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – MINORITIES STILL SUBJECT TO BULK OF
POLLUTION
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 147, p. 149
   Richard Toshiyuki Drury, J. Scott Kuhn, and Shipra Bansal of Communities for a Better Environment and Micheal E. Belliveau of
Just Economics for Environmental Health, examine how programs that embody so many key aspects of sustainable development - the
pollution trading programs in Southern California - have inequitably impacted low income and minority communities in Los Angeles.
They argue that the pollution trading program is being upheld as a model for market-based environmental problem solving, even
though they fail to deliver both on pollution reduction and environmental justice. The authors conclude that these programs do not
protect low income and minority areas from receiving the bulk of pollution; yet at the same time, companies are given a free ride from
pollution reduction targets. In their practical effects, these programs, based on the economic issues raised in sustainable development
policies, completely ignore equity concerns.

MARKET-BASED POLLUTION CONTROL APPROACHES EXACERBATE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM –
ENCOURAGE MORE POLLUTION IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 117-8
  It is well established that minority and low-income communities suffer disproportionate exposure to a variety of types of pollution
under the existing command and control regulatory approach. n40 Although the traditional approach clearly has not adequately
addressed distributional inequities, market-based approaches will inevitably exacerbate those inequities. While the traditional
command and control environmental laws and regulations do not explicitly require the government to avoid actions that disparately
impact low-income or minority communities, those laws also do not affirmatively encourage unequal distribution of pollution. n41
By contrast, as explained below, many market-based approaches to environmental protection affirmatively encourage polluters to shift
pollution to lower-income communities. While command and control regulation may be facially neutral, but discriminatory in
practice, many market-based approaches are designed in a way that will inevitably treat low-income communities unfairly.
  Classical economic theory institutionalizes and exacerbates existing social disparities that are based on unequal distributions of
income. As Judge Richard Posner suggested, in a free market economy, in which voluntary exchange is permitted, "resources are
shifted to those uses in which the value to consumers, as measured by their willingness to pay, is highest. When resources are being
used where their value is highest, we may say that they are being employed efficiently." n42 Although Judge Posner defined "value"
in terms of "willingness to pay," on closer reflection it is clear that Judge Posner and other economists incorporated "ability to pay"
into the concept of "willingness to pay." n43 Thus, under traditional economic theory, a pollutant trading [*119]program, tax
program, or similar market-based reform that shifts pollution to low- income communities is operating efficiently and, therefore,
desirably because resources, such as clean air and clean water, are shifted to the uses in which the value to consumers, as measured by
their willingness (and ability) to pay, is highest. Because wealthy communities are "willing to pay" more for clean air and water than
low-income communities, the market operates efficiently when it funnels those resources to those communities n44 rather than to
low-income communities. In a free market, low-income communities will never have sufficient financial resources to buy clean air,
clean water, and similar environmental and public health resources from wealthy communities or polluters.




                                                                                                                                     43
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
          EMISSIONS TRADING/MARKET MECHANISMS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 2/4

EMISSIONS TRADING PROGRAMS STILL END UP PUTTING MORE POLLUTION IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 82-3
  On July 23, 1997, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), n4 in conjunction with the Center on Race, Poverty and the
Environment and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, became the first environmental justice advocates to allege
unfairness to minority communities from an emissions trading program. n5 In its administrative complaint, based on Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and Executive Order 12,898, n6 CBE n7 challenges the use of mobile source emissions trading
[*83] rules n8 in Los Angeles that allow oil companies' marine terminals to buy emissions credits rather than install pollution
abatement technology. n9 These emissions credits, created by scrapping old, high-polluting vehicles, allow marine terminals to
continue emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at their facilities, while complying with air quality standards. n10 While the
net emissions of VOCs in the air basin remain the same, CBE alleges that allowing air pollution from scrapped vehicles to be
relocated to these marine terminals causes toxic hot spots n11 that disproportionately impact the surrounding Latino communities in
the San Pedro/Wilmington area of Los Angeles. n12
  CBE's environmental justice challenge to emissions trading rules has set two of the hottest issues in environmental policy on a
collision course. On the one hand, traditional market-based approaches focus on efficiency by finding the least costly solution to a
problem. But economics often ignores distributional fairness among participants in the market. In contrast, an environmental justice
analysis does not view efficiency as a goal. Instead, environmental justice advocates place a high premium on relieving low-income
and minority communities of environmental burdens regardless of resulting higher costs to certain market participants or society as a
whole. n13 Can these seemingly incompatible positions be theoretically as well as practically reconciled? In essence, can the market
for environmental benefits be fair and efficient simultaneously?

EMISSIONS TRADING CREATES POLLUTION HOT SPOTS IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 130-1
  If the trading programs will create toxic hot spots, economic theory suggests that the hot spots will most likely occur in low-income
communities. n100 Low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by air pollution, n101 the siting of locally unwanted
land uses (LULUs), n102 and the [*131] siting of heavily polluting industries. n103 This trend will likely continue as pollution
trading programs expand for several reasons that are grounded in economic theory. First, heavily polluting industrial facilities (the
facilities that may purchase pollution credits) will more likely be sited in low-income, urban areas than in middle- to upper-income,
suburban areas. n104 Second, low- income communities may be less likely than affluent communities to urge an outdated, heavily
polluting industry to implement new pollution controls instead of buying pollution rights. Low-income communities may fear that if
they urge the industry to adopt new pollution controls, then the industry will close, depriving the community of essential jobs and tax
revenue. Finally, low-income communities often lack the political power to influence industries to adopt new pollution controls
instead of buying pollution rights. n105

EMISSIONS TRADING CAN LEAD TO DISPARATE POLLUTION IMPACTS IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 112
Even if structural market factors do not inherently discriminate against minority communities, extrinsic market factors could still lead
to per se discrimination by pollution markets. For instance, if the marginal cost of pollution is correlated with race and/or income, then
pollution markets would lead to disparate impacts. Economic principles indicate that stationary sources will buy emission credits when
such credits are cheaper than retrofitting their own facilities. If facilities buying credits (facilities with high marginal costs) are
predominately located in minority communities, then emissions will be redistributed to the surrounding minority communities. To
determine whether the redistribution of such emissions are disparate under Title VI, however, more information linking demographics
to marginal cost is needed.

MINORITY COMMUNITIES WILL BE DISADVANTAGED BY MARKET-BASED POLLUTION APPROACHES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 165-6
  In the current era of antiregulatory sentiment, it is clear that market-based environmental reforms will continue to proliferate and
flourish. However, in a free market, low-income communities will never have sufficient financial resources to buy clean air, clean
water, and similar environmental and public health resources from wealthy communities or polluters. In addition, barriers to collective
organization or public participation, imperfect information, or other market failures will often prevent low-income communities from
even participating in the market for those resources. Consequently, market-based [*166]environmental reforms could exacerbate the
inequitable distribution of pollution in low-income communities.




                                                                                                                                      44
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
          EMISSIONS TRADING/MARKET MECHANISMS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 3/4

EMISSIONS TRADING CREATES POLLUTION HOTSPOTS IN POOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
Niklas A. Akers, Attorney, 2001, Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 7 Hastings W.-N.W. J. Env.
L. & Pol'y 203, p. 206
  Emissions trading has provoked strong critiques from environmental and environmental justice organizations. Some critiques have
focused on trading in general as a method to regulate the environment. Others have dealt with specific applications of emissions
trading, including SCAQMD's car scrapping programs. Generally, the programs have been attacked: (1) based on principle -- that
emissions trading is morally wrong; (2) based on allegations of faulty or fraudulent implementation; and (3) based upon the
disproportionate effect of some programs in creating pollution "hot spots" in poor communities of color.

MARKET BASED APPROACHES EMPHASIZE CHOICE – INHERENTLY RISKS RACIALLY DISPARATE
OUTCOMES
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 113
Market-based approaches are predicated on the idea of choice. n137 Because markets offer polluters a wide range of choices to abate
pollution, the most efficient, cost-effective means can be found for each facility. n138 Studies estimate that market-based approaches
could yield cost savings of thirty to forty percent over command-and-control regulation. n139 Yet, market choice is precisely what
leads to disparate impacts from an environmental justice perspective. Because market choice allows some facilities to pollute more
and some less, there will always be unequal localized pollution effects. When these emissions are disproportionately distributed,
environmental justice advocates argue that market choice disparately impacts low-income and minority communities.
  This assertion must be examined carefully. While market choices allow differential pollution emissions, there is nothing inherent in
choice that dictates disparate impact. As noted above, disproportionate impacts from emission trading could simply be a reflection of
disparate stationary source siting. Disparate siting, however, does not explain why some facilities decide to reduce their own pollution
and some facilities decide to buy credits. The decision to buy or sell pollution credits is based on a complex calculation of a facility's
marginal cost of pollution abatement. Thus, to prove that market choice will inevitably lead to disparate impacts on minority or low-
income communities, one must prove that the marginal cost of pollution is correlated with income and/or race of the community
surrounding the stationary source. n140

EMISSIONS TRADING ALLOWS OFFSETS – MINORITY COMMUNITIES MOST LIKELY TO BE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED
Niklas A. Akers, Attorney, 2001, Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 7 Hastings W.-N.W. J. Env.
L. & Pol'y 203, p. 203
  These trading programs have stimulated both active emissions markets and equally active criticism by environmental and
environmental justice groups. Environmentalist critics have focused on the moral and symbolic implications of pollutant trading and
on failures in implementation. Environmental justice critics have claimed that the trading markets produce "hot spots" of pollution
centered in underrepresented communities. n7 These trades are also open to another critique because markets organized around the
commodity of pollution measured in tons of emissions and blind to the local health effects caused by the migration of those emissions
can allow trades that increase the aggregate risk of death and disease in a region. n8 This paper applies public health techniques to
model and evaluate information about Volatile Organic Compound ("VOC") trading in one air market and considers two case studies.
These models show the potential of VOC trading markets designed around tons of emissions, rather than health effects, to fail and
allow trades that cause a net increased burden on human health. These failures can occur because of the differences in the
communities between which emissions are moved and because of the differences in health effects produced by the family of chemicals
classed as volatile organic compounds.
  Emission credit trades allow the user to increase emissions or to forego a reduction that would otherwise be required by the baseline
of command and control regulations in exchange for "excess" emissions reductions by another facility. n9 Excess emissions
reductions are judged against the baseline of command and control emissions limits. Underlying such a market system is the
assumption of no net negative effect -- that a trade will not compromise efforts to achieve pollution reductions in providing flexibility
to polluters. When the purchaser of a credit uses it in a manner that has more serious impacts on human health than the seller's prior
use of the credit had, the transaction increases risk to human health. A trade that produces a net negative effect such as this betrays the
promise that markets will achieve flexibility without cost to pollution reduction goals. n10




                                                                                                                                        45
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
          EMISSIONS TRADING/MARKET MECHANISMS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 4/4

--regional focus ignores consideration of localized impacts on minority communities
PERMITS VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE – IGNORE LOCAL IMPACTS IN PURSUIT OF BENEFITS FOR
THE ―REGION‖
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 108-9
  Market supporters argue that emissions trading creates health benefits for all communities within the market by reducing the overall
amount of air pollutant emissions that contribute to ozone formation, which leads to smog. Negative health effects from smog can
include asthma, bronchitis, and premature death from respiratory and cardiac disease. n123 Environmental justice supporters argue
that the health of specific local communities cannot be sacrificed for overall regional health benefits. Even though smog levels might
be reduced, benefiting everyone, including low-income and minority communities, this benefit does not offset the significant local
health impacts to specific people. n124 For example, SCAQMD admits that "air toxic health risk [*109] is primarily caused by...
VOC emissions." n125 Environmental justice advocates argue that these localized impacts should not be ignored by market
systems. n126

--trading schemes don‘t allow for minority input
EMISSIONS TRADING VIOLATES COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION NECESSARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
GOALS
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 147, p. 151
  The team of authors from Communities for a Better Environment and Just Economics for Environmental Health offer a pessimistic
account of how pollution trading programs inspired by sustainable development principles fail to involve the minority and low-income
communities of Los Angeles, California. In Los Angeles, the market-based scheme for pollution trading has never adequately included
the concerns of communities which may be affected by what the authors call "toxic hot-spots." Furthermore, pollution trading discards
deliberative decision-making by larger communities for market decisions made by private firms. Finally, the authors argue that since
the program strips pollution of its stigma by treating it as a commodity, communities may have lost a valuable ideological tool in the
debate over the location of negative environmental externalities. The article demonstrates the possible tension between the Clinton
Administration's active encouragement of market based schemes like pollution trading, and its efforts to involve low income and
minority communities in environmental decision-making.

--market approaches biased in favor of those with more resources
MARKET APPROACHES EXACERBATE RACIAL INEQUALITIES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 119-20
  As Professor James White has astutely noted, the economists' justification for the "efficiency" of the free market "takes for granted
not only the existing values (or tastes) of the actors, but also the existing distributions among them of wealth, capacity and entitlement,
which it has no way of criticizing." n45 Furthermore, Professor White has observed that
  [t]he market ideology claims to be radically democratic and egalitarian, because it leaves every person free to do with her own what
she will. But this freedom of choice is not equally distributed among all people. The market is democratic not on the principle of one
person one vote, but on the far different principle of one dollar, one vote. n46

LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES DISADVANTAGED BY MARKET APPROACHES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 156-7
  Low-income communities may also fail to participate in the market for health and environmental benefits because the communities
do not have sufficient financial resources to bargain for those benefits or even to participate in the decisionmaking process. In a
market-based system, low-income communities may never have sufficient resources to bargain successfully for environmental or
health benefits. n250 However, technical assistance grants and loans could be made available to communities that would, at the very
least, enable communities to participate in the decisionmaking process. Without such assistance, communities may be unable to retain
experts to evaluate the environmental and health impacts of pollution trades, to evaluate waivers or modifications of environmental
regulations for Project XL projects or brownfields redevelopment, or to evaluate other market-based actions. n251 Consequently,
communities would be unable to determine the impacts of the proposed action and would be seriously disadvantaged in the
environmental bargaining (decisionmaking) process.




                                                                                                                                        46
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
         POLICIES THAT SEEK EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS VIOLATE
                                    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMS MINORITY
COMMUNITIES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 149
  Pollution prevention and multimedia reforms advance environmental justice because they focus on reducing pollution, but many
market-based reforms merely attempt to redistribute pollution in a more "cost-effective" manner. However, as Part I of this Article
notes, although the market-based reforms generally provide cost savings to polluters over command and control approaches, many of
the reforms do not allocate resources "efficiently" because low-income communities often (a) lack information about the decisions that
are being made that will adversely affect the health and environment of their community; (b) lack the financial resources to participate
in that decisionmaking process; and (c) lack notice of, and the opportunity to participate equally in, that decisionmaking process. In
short, market failures prevent the efficient allocation of environmental and public health amenities ("resources").

ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUALITY IS ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT
John C. Duncan, Jr., Associate Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, 1999, Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law, 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 169, p. 223
If what we want is environmental protection on the cheap, then the best way to achieve it is through injustice. It is more economical to
place environmental risk-generating activities in areas where land is cheaper and where the residents, lacking political influence, are
less likely to successfully oppose [sic] the siting. n250 After siting, fines for noncompliance are likely to be lower in low income
communities and communities of color. n251 Moreover, if the area is subsequently contaminated, listing on the National Priorities
List (NPL) takes longer and clean-up requirements are likely to be less stringent in poor, racial minority and ethnic communities.
n252 It appears, then, that environmental inequity is economically efficient, at least over the short run. As such, inequity could be
viewed as a preference inherent in utilitarianism. n253




                                                                                                                                     47
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                POLLUTION TAXES VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

POLLUTION TAXES EXACERBATE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICES—CREATE TOXIC HOT SPOTS
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 138
  While variable rate waste disposal fees, energy taxes, and other pollution taxes, fees, and charges promise to reduce pollution in
cost-effective ways, they can also perpetuate environmental injustices. First, if governments impose uniform tax rates on pollution
discharges based on the volume or toxicity of the discharge without regard to the location of the discharge, pollution taxes could create
toxic hot spots in the same manner as pollutant trading systems. n147 It may be more cost-effective for old, heavily polluting
industries to pay pollution taxes than to reduce their pollution discharges, especially when the taxes are not set at rates that force
polluters to reduce pollution. n148 Unless governments tax pollution in heavily polluted areas at a higher rate than pollution in other
areas, only newer, cleaner industries will have any incentive to reduce their pollution. n149

POLLUTION TAXES REGRESSIVE – HURT LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 139
  More significantly, though, pollution taxes could have regressive effects on low-income communities. n150 For instance, low-
income households would feel the impacts of an energy tax much more keenly than high-income households because low-income
households spend a greater proportion of their income on heat, electricity, and gasoline than high-income households. n151
Similarly, variable-rate waste disposal fees impose more significant financial burdens on low-income residents than high-income
residents. n152 At least one commentator has suggested that low-income communities should bear a greater proportional share of
pollution reduction costs because those communities will receive the greatest benefit from pollution reductions. n153 Following that
logic one step further, though, shouldn't the communities that benefitted from the existing inequitable distribution of pollution be
taxed for those benefits? Couldn't that money be used to compensate the communities that have endured heavier pollution burdens?
More sensitive commentators have suggested that more progressive pollution taxes could be structured at different rates n154 or
coupled with subsidies or other companion measures. n155




                                                                                                                                     48
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                             NUCLEAR POWER VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 1/4

--nuclear facilities likely to be sited in minority communities
TURN: NUCLEAR POWER DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMS COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND NATIVE
AMERICANS
Energy Justice Network, March 2004, Energy and Environmental Justice, http://www.energyjustice.net/ej/
* Nuclear power disproportionately affects communities of color, from the mining of uranium on Native American lands, to the
targeting of black and Hispanic communities for new uranium processing facilities to the targeting of black and Hispanic and Native
American communities for so-called ―low-level‖ nuclear waste disposal sites. All of the sites proposed for ―temporary‖ and permanent
storage of high level nuclear waste (nuclear reactor fuel rods) have been Native American lands.

TURN: NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES SITED IN POOR AND MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Nuclear Information & Resource Service, 2004, ―Environmental Justice and Nuclear Power‖,
http://www.nirs.org/ejustice/ejustice.htm
Environmental Justice is the concept that major polluting projects should not have a disproportionate impact on minority and poor
communities.
Nuclear waste dumps, toxic incinerators, atomic reactors and other such facilities typically are located where there is cheap land,
cheap facilities, and little organized opposition. Too often, this has been in minority and poor communities that have felt powerless to
oppose corporate giants.

SITING DECISIONS OFTEN MADE IN RACIST MANNER
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 2004, Comments on NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, February 4, http://www.nirs.org/ejustice/nrc/commentsonejpolicy2304.htm
As the Licensing Board recognized in LBP-97-8, racial discrimination or bias can also be inherent in site selection criteria. 45 NRC at
388. For instance, one of the criteria for site selection for the Claiborne Enrichment Center was that the facility should not be sited
within five miles of institutions such as schools, hospitals, or nursing homes. As Dr. Bullard explained, this criterion was ―inherently
biased toward the selection of sites in minority and poor areas because these areas generally lack institutions such as schools, hospitals
and nursing homes that are the focus of this criterion.‖ While it is ―not necessarily inappropriate to attempt to site a hazardous facility
in an area that is far from these institutions‖, Dr. Bullard warned that this criterion cannot be applied equitably ―unless the process is
enlightened by consideration of the demographics of the affected population.‖ Id. Otherwise, disadvantaged populations ―will
invariably be favored as hosts for more hazardous facilities as is evidenced by the fact that minority communities already host a
disproportionate share of prisons, half-way houses, and mental institutions.‖ Id.




                                                                                                                                        49
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                             NUCLEAR POWER VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 2/4

--nuclear facilities sitings violate Native American rights
YUCCA MOUNTAIN STOARGE SITE INFRINGES ON NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS – ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Corp Watch, 2002, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Infringes on Native Rights,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2533
Nevada is the national site for the permanent storage of high-level nuclear waste. The proposed plan by the Bush administration to
utilize Yucca Mountain, in Nevada is flawed in many ways. Yucca Mountain lies in an earthquake zone and atop a drinking water
aquifer. Yucca Mountain is also a spiritually, culturally and historically significant area according to leaders of the Western Shoshone
National Council. "Yucca Mountain is a sacred site in our sovereign territory of the Newe Sogobia," said Chief Raymond Yowell.
"The Bush administration has not consulted with our people on this serious issue that could endanger the future of our tribal nation."
Members of the Western Shoshone nation of Newe Sogobia, known as Nevada, still maintain land claims of Yucca Mountain and
lands of New Sogobia, which was formalized in the 1863 treaty of Ruby Valley.
This project will attempt to send radioactive and toxic waste from all over the country to the Yucca Mountain repository. "For the
House to support the Bush administrations plan to dump this country's nuclear waste on the backs of our Native Americans is an
insult. This is an extreme act of environmental racism and travesty against tribal rights," says Tom Goldtooth, of the Indigenous
Environmental Network, with its national office located in Minnesota.

NUCLEAR FACILITIES SITED NEXT TO TRIBAL LANDS
Corp Watch, 2002, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Infringes on Native Rights,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2533
In Minnesota, Xcel Energy operates two nuclear power plants with one plant located next door to the Prairie Island Dakota
community. The Dakota tribe has always been concerned of the Xcel energy plant next door to their tribal homes and children
playgrounds. "The proposal to move nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not rid Prairie Island of nuclear waste currently stored on
the banks of the Mississippi River," noted Diana McKeown, Energy Program Coordinator for Clean Water Action Alliance. "As each
nuclear waste cask is slowly moved from Prairie Island to Yucca Mountain it will be replaced with another full cask of waste on the
Island. The result being that we will always have 17 casks of nuclear waste casks on Prairie Island as long as the plant continues to
operate." The Prairie Island tribe has been in support of the Yucca Mountain repository in hopes of ridding the nuclear waste from
their backyard.

NUCLEAR PLANTS BUILT ON SACRED TRIBAL GROUND
Lea Foushee, North American Water Office, 2004, Response to NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, January 13, http://www.nawo.org/NRCEJcomment.html
NSP built its Prairie Island nuclear reactors on the ancestral burial grounds of the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota. Local
newspapers advertised archeological bone digs of these ancestors. This project began in 1958 and the corporation concealed the truth
from the Prairie Island Community about what kind of power plant they intended to construct. NSP simply said it was to be a steam
plant, inferring coal as a fuel, not a nuclear plant.
The site approval and construction were done at a time when the Prairie Island Community was a ward of the United States federal
government, in a state of extreme poverty, and with no independent right to legal self-representation. The US federal government
betrayed its trust responsibility when the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved an easement through the reservation to allow the
construction of the nuclear plant on Prairie Island.




                                                                                                                                      50
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                             NUCLEAR POWER VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 3/4

--uranium mining disproportionately harms native americans
URANIUM MINING MOSTLY ON TRIBAL LAND – INCREASES EXPOSURE TO RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES
Lea Foushee, North American Water Office, 2004, Response to NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, January 13, http://www.nawo.org/NRCEJcomment.html
Seventy percent of the world's uranium is on Indigenous lands. The largest open pit mine, now closed, is Anaconda's Jackpile mine on
Laguna Pueblo (New Mexico) land. Other uranium mines are on Navajo lands throughout the Grants Mineral Belt (Arizona and New
Mexico) including Crownpoint NM, Cree and Dené lands in Northern Saskatchewan, and Anishinabe lands in Ontario. Uranium
mines are also located in South Africa and the Aboriginal lands in Australia.
Uranium ore must be milled into yellowcake before it is shipped to a fabrication plant to be made into fuel pellets. Uranium mill
tailings, a fine-grained debris, retain about 85% of the radioactivity of the original ore. Tailings have generally not been reclaimed
because of the quantity and nature of the tailings themselves.
There are four pathways for exposure from tailings: inhalation; whole body doses; ingestion of contaminated food or water; and use of
tailings for building materials and fill. For example the roads in Laguna Pueblo were paved with uranium tailings, and low income
housing in Edgemont, South Dakota was constructed with cement blocks made from uranium tailings from the Edgemont mill. United
Nuclear‘s uranium mill at Churchrock, NM is historically (1979) the site of an enormous accident spilling 100 million gallons of
highly radioactive water in the Rió Puerco River impacting more than a 1,700 Diné by contaminating their only source of water and
killing over 1,000 head of livestock.

URANIUM MINING DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMS NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
Jerrad Pierce, 2004, ―Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Global Warming?, http://www.pthbb.org/natural/17_32-nuclear.pdf.
A nuclear economy would result in an increased dependence on foreign energy. While the United States has significant uranium
deposits, they like many of our oil deposits, remain economically unviable given the commodity pricing of uranium from international
sources. There are two other issues with fuel acquisition. While uranium mining is not that different from coal mining the locations
of American uranium deposits poses problems. Uranium deposits in the Untied States are largely in the Black Hills and Four Corners
regions of the Western US. Both are desert environments which may be more particularly sensitive to the impacts of industrial
mining. Secondly, both locations are home to native peoples which poses questions of environmental justice. The relocation of
indigenous people to marginal lands is morally questionable, but to then seek the ability to extract minerals from these lands against
their wishes is unjust.
There are wide variety of environmental injustices, past, present, and future, associated with nuclear energy which must be considered.
Navajo miners employed in Four Corners uranium mines have filed suit on claims of improper notification of the associated
occupational hazards. The siting of waste disposal facilities has become highly politicized and Nevada may become the final resting
place by congressional fiat or tyranny of the majority. Some ―analysts feel that utilities would be more likely to gain public
acceptance for new nuclear facilities if they were sited or expanded near existing plants rather than in new areas‖ (Switzer, 2004). As
with any energy source, it is most effective to site sources near sinks, i.e. population centers, this is particularly true if one hopes to
take advantage of cogeneration. Of course, most Americans would protest the construction and operation of a nuclear facility to
provide the energy services they demand, deemed necessary by the need to curb global warming, near them with cries of ―Not In My
Backyard.‖ A final example of conflicting demands with implications for justice regards the water use of most nuclear power plants.
The discarded 60% of the available energy is typically discarded in a local waterbody, with significant repercussions for the
ecosystem.




                                                                                                                                       51
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                             NUCLEAR POWER VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 4/4

--nuclear industry historically racist
NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IS RACIST
Lea Foushee, North American Water Office, 2004, Response to NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, January 13, http://www.nawo.org/NRCEJcomment.html
The intention of this Nuclear Regulatory Agency proposed policy statement ignores the existing inherent racism within the nuclear
industry whether military or civilian in nature. It is our contention that because of this internalized racism within the nuclear industry
there must be a generic Environmental Justice assessment of the nuclear industry particularly, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
intends to have generic policy and licensing rules.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS RACIST – WANTS IMMUNITY
Nuclear Monitor, November 28, 2003, US NRC Issues Proposed, and Weakened Environmental Justice Policy,
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/599/5558.php
The current draft statement represents NRC's effort to step backwards and accommodate the nuclear power industry a position that
some characterize as itself racist, but that at the least reveals the industry's inability to even understand issues of racism, much less
deal with them on its own. In December 2002 the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) had written to the commission asking that
the agency implement new rules forbidding anyone from raising environmental justice issues for any reason in the licensing process
for nuclear facilities. In other words, the nuclear industry sought complete immunity from any charges of racism whatsoever.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY GUILTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Lea Foushee, North American Water Office, 2004, Response to NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, January 13, http://www.nawo.org/NRCEJcomment.html
Other examples of environmental racism in the nuclear industry include the projects proposed for Ward Valley and Sierra Blanca, the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation immediately adjacent to the Yakima Nation, and the Savanna River Nuclear Facility surrounded by a
large African American community.




                                                                                                                                        52
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
         NRC DOES NOT CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS IN ITS DECISIONS p. 1/2

NRC HAS WEAKENED ITS POLICY TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN LICENSING
Nuclear Monitor, November 28, 2003, US NRC Issues Proposed, and Weakened Environmental Justice Policy,
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/599/5558.php
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued on 5 November a draft policy statement that substantially weakens its
position on environmental justice issues and backtracks on a commitment made by the NRC in 1994 to abide by the terms of President
Clinton's executive order on environmental justice.

NRC LICENSING POLICY EFFECTIVELY IGNORES ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM ISSUES
Nuclear Monitor, November 28, 2003, US NRC Issues Proposed, and Weakened Environmental Justice Policy,
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/599/5558.php
The approach the NRC came up with is not nearly so blatantly racist, but certainly should meet most of the NEI's goals. The NRC has
not forbidden environmental justice issues, it's just made raising them nearly impossible. And it hasn't completely denied the
president's executive order, it has just said that it will deal with environmental justice issues only during the normal range of business-
relegating them to consideration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues, which, of course, is exactly where they were
before President Clinton issued the order. In other words, the NRC seems to be saying, yes, we know the executive order exists and
has never been rescinded, but we're going to comply with it by doing what we were doing before it was issued…which in the NRC's
case was nothing.

NRC IGNORES ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM ISSUES IN LICENSING DECISIONS
Lea Foushee, North American Water Office, 2004, Response to NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, January 13, http://www.nawo.org/NRCEJcomment.html
The examples that are illuminated here are not exhaustive nor are they coincidental. One could justify such a statement, if perhaps one
or two facilities were sited on Indigenous lands or in communities of color. The absence of a commitment to perform a generic
Environmental Justice Analysis as a vital component of a generic policy and licensing protocol by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ignores the racism of the Nuclear Industry and is of and in itself racist behavior. The existing Corporate policy and
government approval is very clear. This new proposed action by the NRC does not address the racism inherent in the Nuclear Industry
or the unacceptable health effects caused to those impacted by the nuclear sites whether existing or under future consideration. This
action ignores the Trust Responsibility that the US Government is required to exercise with Indigenous Nations. The Government-to-
Government Relationship is clearly abused and Treaty laws ignored. In fact the proposed policy statement supports the status quo of
environmental racism which Executive Order 12898 is intended to address. The essence of Nuclear Racism is at the heart of the
proposed policy statement, which would systematically thwart the intent of the Executive Order.

NEW NRC POLICY IS A REJECTION OF ANY COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Nuclear Monitor, November 28, 2003, US NRC Issues Proposed, and Weakened Environmental Justice Policy,
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/599/5558.php
And explaining the policy may be very necessary-it seems to be written in deliberately obfuscatory language; lawyers obviously went
over the language many times. Rather than clarify the environmental justice issue and explain why the NRC believes changes to its
existing policy are necessary, the policy appears designed to confuse the issue and make it appear that virtually no changes are being
made when, in fact, the changes are fundamental and a near-complete rejection of the agency's commitment to environmental justice.
The draft policy makes clear that the NRC believes environmental justice issues are not per se litigable in licensing proceedings. The
policy goes on to state that environmental justices issues won't be considered in generic rulemakings or proceedings, and that, in fact,
they will only be considered under limited NEPA-related actions. Instead of welcoming the Executive Order, the NRC now is parsing
the Order to determine how little it can do to meet its intent rather than how much it can do to address environmental racism issues-for
which the nuclear power industry has a miserable track record.




                                                                                                                                        53
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
         NRC DOES NOT CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS IN ITS DECISIONS p. 2/2

NRC HAS RETREATED FROM ITS COMMITMENT TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Common Dreams: Progressive Newswire, 2004, ―Government bows to nuclear industry pressure by gutting its environmental
justice policy, August 24, http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0824-12.htm
―While the policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice matters in NRC licensing, rulemaking and regulatory actions
purports to be a reaffirmation of the NRC‘s commitment to the consideration of environmental justice issues, the new policy is
disingenuous and retreats from the basic principles of environmental justice as established in the initial executive order,‖ said
Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen‘s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.
Today‘s NRC policy statement asserts that the executive order ―does not establish new substantive or procedural requirements
applicable to NRC regulatory or licensing activities.‖ The result is that the NRC likely will refuse to consider legal challenges
regarding issues of racial discrimination, fairness and economic equity in its licensing hearings. In a current proceeding involving a
proposed uranium enrichment plant, the NRC commissioners already ordered that only themselves – not the licensing board
overseeing the hearing – would determine whether environmental justice issues would be heard.

NRC BACKED OFF ITS PLEDGE TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 2004, Comments on NRC Policy Statement on the treatment of environmental justice
matters in NRC regulatory and licensing actions, February 4, http://www.nirs.org/ejustice/nrc/commentsonejpolicy2304.htm
The NRC‘s Draft Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions is
virtually devoid of affirmative policies for considering environmental justice issues in the NEPA decision-making process. Instead, it
is a catalogue of the ways in which the NRC does not plan to consider environmental justice issues. Moreover, the NRC‘s rationale
for refusing to consider discrimination in the NEPA decision-making is not supportable. The NRC should scrap this proposal and
begin again.

NRC HAS RETREATED FROM POLICY TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Public Citizen, 2004, Public Citizen‘s Comments on the NRC‘s ―Environmental Justice‖ Policy Proposal, February 3,
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival/articles.cfm?ID=10971
The draft policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice (EJ) matters in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
licensing, rulemaking, and regulatory actions purports to be a reaffirmation of the Commission‘s commitment to the consideration of
EJ issues within the context of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) licensing requirements. Framing the statement thus is
disingenuous, however, because the draft policy statement suggests a retreat from the basic principles of EJ. The effect is a virtual
license to NRC staff to deemphasize EJ matters in licensing proceedings, contrary to the intent of Executive Order 12898 (hereafter,
―the EO‖), ―Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.‖ The EO was
issued as progressive public policy initiative designed to mitigate environmental and health hazards created by federally-sanctioned
developments and industrial activities that disproportionately affected minority and low-income populations.

NEW NRC POLICY ABANDONS EG AS AN ELEMENT IN LICENSING ADJUDICATIONS
Public Citizen, 2004, Public Citizen‘s Comments on the NRC‘s ―Environmental Justice‖ Policy Proposal, February 3,
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival/articles.cfm?ID=10971
The NRC claims that it is ―committed to the general goals of [the EO],‖ but it has now introduced the caveat that it shall henceforth ―strive to meet those goals through
its normal and traditional NEPA process‖ (emphasis added). Further, the Commission cites the two previous cases in which EJ issues have been considered (LES and
PFS) and reasons that, ―[i]n light of the previous adjudications, the Commission sees a need, and thinks it appropriate, to set out its views and policy on the significance
of the E.O. and guidelines of when and how EJ will be considered in NRC‘s licensing and regulatory actions.‖ But the practical outcome of the policy
statement would be a retraction of EJ as a cognizable element in licensing adjudications, which suggests that the statement is not so
much policy clarification as a gift to the nuclear industry.

NRC HAS ABANDONED PLEDGE TO COMPLY WITH EJ EXECUTIVE ORDER
Public Citizen, 2004, Public Citizen‘s Comments on the NRC‘s ―Environmental Justice‖ Policy Proposal, February 3,
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival/articles.cfm?ID=10971
The draft EJ policy statement is a regression in terms of civil rights and progressive public policy, and it is a virtual retraction of former
Chairman Selin‘s pledge that the NRC would ―endeavor to carry out the measures set forth in Executive Order 12898.‖ The NRC‘s suggestion that ―EJ per se is not a
litigable issue in our proceedings‖ seems to contradict Mr. Selin‘s acknowledgement that, given the nature of the NRC as a licensing and regulatory agency, the EO
applies to NRC‘s requirements under NEPA. The EO is clearly intended to expand the scope of NRC‘s NEPA requirements to include EJ matters in licensing
proceedings, not limit that scope. The policy statement notes that ―[r]acial motivation and fairness or equity issues are not cognizable under
NEPA,‖ but this represents a debasement of the expressed intent and spirit of the EO, which is an executive charge to take into
consideration the complex matrix of race, class, and ethnic elements that might indicate undue discrimination of minority and low-
income populations. Withdrawal from this noble pursuit creates the impression of subservience to the demands of the nuclear industry.




                                                                                                                                                                        54
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
    AT: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 1/4

--increased participation does not ensure just outcomes
INCREASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DOES NOT ENSURE ENVIRONMENTALLY JUST OUTCOMES
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 485
  [*485] There is nothing inherent in collaboration, however, either as a norm or a practice, that ensures a resolution to the problems
of unequal representation and influence that underlie conventional decision-making processes and that are central to environmental
justice critiques of those processes. In fact, the very prerequisites upon which the promises of devolved collaboration hang contain the
seeds of its dangers. There is reason to believe that many collaborative efforts simply replicate, and perhaps even exacerbate, existing
representation problems in new decision-making structures dependent upon consensus resolutions. Additionally, devolving or
decentralizing decision-making influence can render these problems less visible or subject to scrutiny because the farther the process
is removed from a centralized decision-maker, the less accountability there will be for the legitimacy of the process. This leaves
environmental and natural resource decisions in the hands of a few local interests that may not account for the diversity of public
values that devolved collaboration promises to bring to environmental problem-solving. Devolution may also entrench patterns of
unequal influence of socially and economically vulnerable stakeholders, a problem that haunts conventional processes and is at the
root of environmental justice claims.

INCREASED PUBLIC INPUT IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONMAKING LIKELY TO REINFORCE EXISTING
INEQUALITIES
Eileen Gauna, Professor of Law, Southwestern University School of Law, 1998, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 17 Stan.
Envtl. L.J. 3, p. 36-7
Undue reliance upon the ideals associated with pluralism is similarly problematic. Preferences are defined by the relative power of
[*37] self-interested subjects. Therefore, they may be distorted by existing inequalities, poorly construed as a result of exclusion and
unequal political clout, or prove simply unethical. n155
   In the agency context, distortion might be alleviated to some extent, at least in theory. An agency has an opportunity to correct
distortion to a limited degree as long as the preferences are legislatively expressed in general terms. For example, an overly
aspirational statute passed in the heat of public outrage might be tempered, during implementation, by the reality of economic and
technological limitations. n156 Or perhaps a statute distorted by excessive special interest group influence n157 might be corrected
at the agency level if, during implementation, the agency correctly identified and sought input from other interested groups.

--emphasis on consensus incompatible with social justice
EMPHASIS ON CONSENSUS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FORA INCONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 493
  Even with broad representation, however, devolved collaborative processes can be highly problematic from a substantive point of
view. As critics of consensus aptly observe, the theory of consensus itself contains an inherent ideological bias. Its emphasis on
securing unanimous agreement through the identification of common interests ("win-win") can be antithetical to achieving substantive
justice. n145 Such emphasis can skew the process in favor of the outcome that reflects the lowest common denominator acceptable to
all parties. The problem with outcomes reflecting the lowest common denominator is that, while the process can be deemed
"legitimate" in a democratic process sense, its outcome may reflect what commentators call a "domination by means of leveling."
n146 In other words, it tends to leave out difficult, unpopular, or minority concerns, and may orient the process away from sorely
needed innovative solutions that address these concerns.




                                                                                                                                      55
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
    AT: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 2/4

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS CAN BE HIJACKED BY POWERFUL PARTICIPANTS TO THE
DISADVANTAGE OF MINORITY VIEWPOINTS
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 493-4
  The substantive bias also reveals itself in the very mechanisms upon which consensus depends. Consensus simultaneously stresses
agreement and compromise while "veiling the increased potential for coercion by leaders" of collaborative groups. n147 The primary
mechanism through which this coercion is practiced is the veto power possessed by each participant. [*494] This veto power can force
agreement by threatening complete failure of the process if it is exercised. Given current disparities in material resources and social
capital, "those with greater power possess and frequently use their prerogative to exert substantial influence over other members and,
through them, the content of group decisions." n148 In this way, by forcing agreement through coercion, more powerful and
knowledgeable participants are able to co-opt dissident viewpoints that may be critical to seeking more creative and just decisions.
n149
  By ignoring, marginalizing, or co-opting difficult questions of distributional justice, or other pressing policy dilemmas, consensus
processes at their most benign replicate the status quo. Communities disproportionately bearing the costs of current environmental
policy and natural resources management may not be left any worse off by consensus solutions, but they will not likely be helped by
them either. At their most dangerous, consensus solutions may change the status quo for the worse, exacerbating existing
distributional disparities. In the final analysis, the outcomes from some consensus-based process will no more reflect the "public
interest" than the problematic pluralistic processes they replace.

COLLABORATIVE PROCESS OF INCREASING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DISEMPOWERS MINORITY INTERESTS
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 493
  Another source of disempowerment for minority interests is the collaborative process itself, namely its requirement of consensus.
One of the central insights of environmental justice theory is that process and distributional inequities are crucially intertwined in the
production of regulatory costs and benefits. n144 The recognition that distributional patterns and decision-making processes depend
upon and reinforce one another entails a particular type of scrutiny of devolved collaborative processes, at least when viewed through
the lens of environmental justice. As already discussed, a legitimate collaborative process will depend upon an adequate distribution
of material resources, social capital, and other social goods crucial to participation in those processes. Local interests with large
deficits in these goods and resources will be excluded from such processes and, as with conventional decision-making processes, will
disproportionately bear the costs of consensus-based outcomes and perhaps reap few of their benefits.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS MAGNIFY ENVIRONMENTALLY UNJUST DECISIONS
Alice Kaswan, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, March, 2003, North Carolina Law Review, 81
N.C.L. Rev. 1031, p. 1133
  [*1133] If some groups use the public participation system more effectively than others, then, to the extent that public participation
provisions do affect substantive siting decisions, one can expect that they will decrease siting where public participation exists and is
effective and increase siting where there is less, or less effective, participation. n469 If the poor and minorities are less able to use
public participation provisions effectively, then they are more likely to be subject to land uses that do not match their preferences.




                                                                                                                                       56
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
    AT: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 3/4

--increased public participation does not improve environmental justice
DEMOCRATIC ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION-MAKING IS A UTOPIAN IDEAL – IN ACTUALITY IT IS DIFFICULT
TO FAIRLY ACCOUNT FOR MINORITY VIEWPOINTS IN THESE SETTINGS
Sheila Foster, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, 2002, The Harvard Environmental Law Review, 26 Harv.
Envtl. L. Rev. 459, p. 494-5
  The ideal of devolved collaboration expresses quite well the democratic wish of those who desire more inclusive, representative,
creative, and effective environmental decision-making. The "democratic wish"--the imagery of a single, united people bound together
by consensus over the public good that is discerned though direct citizen participation in community settings--has a long tradition in
America. n150 It is, as James Morone has emphasized, a "legitimate, populist counter to the liberal status quo" that various social
movements have seized upon at critical moments throughout American history. n151 Ultimately, however, the democratic wish is
Utopian in its imagery of a "people" coming together to deliberate, unite around conceptions of the common good, and restore [*495]
community among and across broad interest groups. n152 The trouble with participatory yearning, explains Morone, is "its innocence
of organizational dynamics" and the constraints that new forms of participatory arenas can place on the very fundamental changes
taking place. n153 These constraints tend to "limit the oppressed at the same time as it legitimates them," in part because the
democratic urge and its new forms of participation tend to "leave behind the underlying conditions it found: a political economy of
self-seeking interests pushing ahead within a complex welter of political rules that advantage some citizens, disadvantage others, and
seem almost invisible to all." n154

INCREASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSUFFICIENT TO SAFEGUARD MINORITY INTERESTS – MUST
ADDRESS POWERLESSNESS
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 104
However, like Beck (1995: 75-6), we are not prepared to endorse value relativism either as a virtue or as an inescapable fact in the
‗age of risk‘. There are objective dangers arising from contemporary industrialism, in the form of toxic wastes and other hazards,
which cannot be socially distributed merely through a system of culturally derived preferences. The danger is not just a matter of
opinion. Too often cultural relativism is a mask for anti-democratic politics and even localized tyranny. Even where some form of
democracy can be assumed for all social contexts, it is doubtful that all communities will posses perfect information concerning the
nature of the environmental risks they may be asked to carry in the form of hazardous land uses. As will be shown in this section, a
collusion between markets and racially discriminatory anti-ecological local politics has produced a racialized pattern of risk in the
United States, meaning that many urban colored communities now bear a disproportionate share of the environmental risks that arise
from that nation‘s hazardous industries.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSES INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS
John C. Duncan, Jr., Associate Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, 1999, Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law, 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 169, p. 221-3
A minority group advocating environmental justice undoubtedly acts to further its own motive. n241 A minority group may
advocate environmental justice concerns, so long as the benefit of environmental justice does not induce the "pain" contemplated by
utilitarianism, n242 or extend to violate the legitimate expectations of anyone else. n243 Other interest groups may advocate their
positions, so long as their interests advocate the greater collective social utility. n244 Ideally, minority concerns, particularly
environmental justice concerns, comprise a collective value to be taken into consideration to maximize the overall social utility.
n245
  The reality of incorporation of environmental justice advocacy in the utilitarian framework falls far short of the ideal. n246
Environmental justice presents a potentially incompatible variable to the utilitarian approach to decision-making. n247 Wealth
maximization can be considered instrumental to utility maximization, if one assumes the things that make wealth possible are major
ingredients in people's happiness. n248 Following this assumption, environmental justice is not included in a more general mix of
aggregated preferences. n249




                                                                                                                                    57
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
    AT: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SOLVES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE p. 4/4

--increased participation leads to worse outcomes
INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKING LOWERS THE QUALITY OF THE
DECISIONS
Jim Rossi, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Fall, 1997, Northwestern University Law Review, 92 Nw.
U.L. Rev. 173, p. 178
   If participation raises problems for democracy, it is certain to raise problems for contemporary democracy's veritable "fourth
branch" - administrative agencies. For example, as public participation in agency decisions has increased over the past thirty years,
citizens have expressed less, not more, confidence in government. Bureaucrats are perceived today in popular culture as out-of-touch,
staid, and lackluster. n20 Perhaps, as opportunities for access have increased, citizens over the years have had more direct experience
with what has always been there - ineffective bureaucracy. n21
   On the other hand, the increase in mass participation itself may have adversely affected the quality of bureaucratic decisionmaking.
n22 In this Article, I explore the mechanisms by which participation reveals itself in modern bureaucratic democracy. After
introducing participation's values and its contribution to various political-theoretic models of agency decisionmaking, this Article
examines a particular cost of mass participation n23 - its negative spillover effects on another political ideal, deliberation - and
explores this cost in the context of administrative law. I argue that mass participation, while sometimes beneficial to agency
legitimacy, may in certain circumstances impair deliberation, which many contemporary administrative theorists perceive as an
equally important function of administrative law. A threshold amount of participation is necessary to deliberative decisions, but at
some point participation creates significant institutional costs for deliberative administrative process. As a result, the ideals of
democratic governance may suffer.

INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN DECISIONMAKING BAD FOR DEMOCRACY
Jim Rossi, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Fall, 1997, Northwestern University Law Review, 92 Nw.
U.L. Rev. 173, p. 177-8
   While it would be sophomoric to suggest that democracy, like serious music or baseball, n13 ought to be left to the professionals,
political theorists have often suggested that mass participation is not always a positive good for democracy. Plato suggested that some
elite - not the masses - should govern because of its monopoly on certain skills conducive to collective judgment. n14 And, in the
twentieth century, political commentators ranging in ideology from Jose Ortega y Gasset n15 to Walter Lippman n16 to Hannah
Arendt n17 have expressed ambivalence about unfettered participation of the masses in democratic decisionmaking. These theorists
perceive mass participation as a threat to democracy, because the masses - the People - may be under- or mis-informed, lost,
bewildered, overly self-interested, or simply apathetic. n18 Indeed, recent public attitudes about Congress reaffirm this perception:
Congress, the most public and directly participatory institution in our government, is also one of the most disliked institutions of
government. n19

--increased participation dilutes position of minorities
INCREASING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DILUTES THE INFLUENCE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT SHOW UP
John C. Duncan, Jr., Associate Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, 1999, Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law, 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 169, p. 188
  A larger number of participants, however, may diminish an individual's perception of influence over the decision-making process.
n94 An individual may feel her or his participation becomes irrelevant as more people join the process. Nonetheless, it is appropriate
to increase public participation when those who are encouraged to participate are those most likely to be affected by the agency's
decision. Logically speaking, those individuals who will be directly affected by an agency's decision should have some priority to
voice their opinions in a public hearing. n95




                                                                                                                                     58
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                     PROJECT XL VIOLATES ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

PROJECT XL INCREASES ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE
Stephen M. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer University, 1999, Washington & Lee Law Review, 56 Wash & Lee L.
Rev. 111, p. 139-41
  Project XL is another market-based reform that could disparately impact low- income communities. Through Project XL, which
stands for "excellence in leadership," EPA has committed to approve fifty pilot projects to examine innovative ways to achieve
environmental and public health protection in a more cost-effective manner. n157 In Project XL, EPA enters into agreements with
polluters that authorize the polluters to avoid certain regulatory and legal requirements if the polluters can operate their businesses in a
manner that achieves "superior environmental results" while meeting certain other criteria. n158 EPA [*140] hopes that the initiative
will stimulate regulatory flexibility and will create models for future reforms. n159
  In a Project XL pilot project, EPA might (a) authorize emissions trading, caps, or bubbles that are not otherwise authorized by law;
n160 (b) waive permit or reporting requirements or procedures to allow businesses to consolidate permits or reports; n161 or (c)
allow businesses to comply with performance standards instead of applicable technology-based standards. n162
  EPA waives or modifies regulatory and legal requirements in Project XL pilot projects in order to achieve environmental protection
in a more cost-effective manner. However, these waivers may actually increase pollution in the communities surrounding the pilot
project because determining whether a project produces "superior environmental results" is a very subjective task. First, it is difficult
to calculate baseline pollution levels in order to determine whether a project increases or decreases pollution. n163 Second, Project
XL pilot projects may decrease discharges of one pollutant but increase the production of another pollutant, or the projects may
transfer pollution from one medium to another. n164 While the project might seem, initially, to produce "superior environmental
results," it could aggravate health or environmental impacts to the surrounding community because of the synergistic or cumulative
impacts of the new pollutant or new discharge, coupled with existing pollution. n165 Those impacts might not be apparent without
detailed study and analysis.
  To the extent that Project XL pilot projects will increase pollution levels in particular communities, it is likely that the projects will
disparately impact low-income communities. Project XL pilot projects are developed through a very time- consuming, technical
process, and the projects involve detailed analyses of industrial processes and economics. While affluent communities will be able to
hire consultants and experts to evaluate and to comment on the pilot project proposals or to challenge the validity of the agency's
agreements, it will be more difficult for lower-income communities to shoulder those expenses. n166 As a result, to the extent that
the Project XL pilot project development process frustrates the ability of low-income communities to participate in the process, it is
more likely that EPA will enter into Project XL agreements that increase pollution in low-income communities rather than in affluent
communities. However, potential disparate impacts of Project XL may not be a major concern for any communities because the
program has not been very successful thus far. n167




                                                                                                                                         59
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                COMMAND AND CONTROL REGULATIONS SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ELIMINATES DISPARATE IMPACTS OF EMISSIONS TRADING
Lily E. Chinn, Editor UCLA Law Review, 1999, Ecology Law Quarterly, 26 Ecology L.Q. 80, p. 118
One obvious remedy to potential disparate impacts created by emissions trading would be a full return to the command-and-control
system. Given the market savings realized by RECLAIM and similar pollution markets, it is unlikely that this remedy is a viable
political or economic option. n156 A partial return to direct regulation, however, could diffuse potential disparate impacts from
emissions trading. For example, CBE recommends elimination of mobile source credits from car scrapping because these MSERCs
have a tendency to concentrate once widely dispersed emissions into a specific community. It requests that EPA deny approval of
Rule 1610 for use to comply with federal CAA requirements, in effect ending the primary method of alternative compliance with Rule
1142. n157




                                                                                                                               60
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
         TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖ : FRONT LINE

A. ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING ARGUMENT THAT SOLVING DIFFERENTIAL POLLUTION EXPOSURE SOLVES
RACISM ARE FLAWED – MISUNDERSTANDS RACISM ALTOGETHER
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 18
One scholar of environmental racism has offered us a clue as to why meaning is overlooked in favor of quantitative analysis. ―The
stigma of being branded a racist organization is so odious that the accusation demands proof‖. Implicit in this statement is the belief
that only conscious actions driven by biological prejudice constitute racism. Few of those participating in the discourse of
environmental justice, however, have sought to uncover these assumptions and place the debate in terms of ideology. By focusing on
the inequitable siting of hazardous facilities and disproportionate exposure to pollution, we ultimately fetishize skin color or
phenotype (as seen in the title of one article, ―Black, Brown, Poor and Poisoned‖ [Austin and Schill 1991]) instead of developing a
broader and deeper understanding of how inequality is reproduced. Likewise, few have critically studied the environmental justice
movement itself, preferring either to document inequalities or to present examples of environmental resistance on the part of people of
color, thereby contributing to a unified image of resistance. A number of popular writers and scholars have presented overviews of
the rise and contours of the movement, most of which affirm the distinction between environmental justice and mainstream
environmentalism.

B. FOCUS ON AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS MASKS THE UNDERLYING
RACIST STRUCTURES AND STRENGTHENS UNJUST INSTITUTIONS
Alice Kaswan, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, March, 2003, North Carolina Law Review, 81
N.C.L. Rev. 1031, p. 1058-9
  Writing in political philosophy, Professor Iris Marion Young has suggested a deeper critique of a focus on distributive justice. Like
Professor Foster, she argues that focusing on distributive justice could fail to address the deeper social problems that cause disparities
to arise n110 because it presupposes rather than scrutinizes institutional structures and processes. n111 Ultimately, a primary focus on
distribution could implicitly support unjust institutions, since it takes them as given. n112 Her concern is not just with the study of
discrimination, however, but the development of distributionally-based remedies. For example, affirmative action efforts tend to focus
on distributions: who gets employment or opportunities for higher education. That focus fails to address such critical underlying
structural issues as who decides who is "qualified" for employment and why some have the means to attain these qualifications while
others do not. n113 A focus on distribution is ultimately depoliticizing, Professor Young argues, because potential challenges to the
existing systems of power and control become rechanneled into distributive "solutions" that dissipate the thrust of critical social
movements. n114 Professor Young does not argue that distributive justice is irrelevant, n115 but she does argue that issues of political
and social justice should be the primary focus.
  Professor Young's concern that a preoccupation with distributive justice could lead to a failure to question and challenge unjust
social and institutional structures is an important caution. If the environmental justice movement were reduced to simply counting how
many facilities end up here and there, then critical aspects of the movement would indeed be lost. Many environmental justice
leaders are not simply challenging the number of facilities to which they are subject, but also the fairness of decision-making and
underlying power structures. n116 Challenging environmental decisions is one step in a broader engagement over the nature of
economic and political power. The goal of sustained challenge is a greater political voice - a voice that may transcend particular
disputes over particular facilities. n117 It is also important to identify the widespread inequities [*1060] that may lie behind current
land use distributions. Furthermore, addressing political and social processes will also likely improve distributive justice given their
role in causing disparities. Nonetheless, given the difficulty of devising effective remedies for many past and present forms of political
and social injustices, n118 and the real world consequences of distributional inequities, I argue that it is appropriate for the movement
to direct at least some of its efforts toward distribution-focused remedies.




                                                                                                                                       61
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                      Focus on Siting Decisions/Intentional Acts Ignores Underlying Racism p. 1/2

SIMPLISTIC CONCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM MASKS BROADER INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on
the Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 3
Environmental justice activist movement and scholarship have resulted in significant political, legislative, and social developments.
While environmental justice advocates have striven for participatory democracy, the movement has also generated internal conflicts
and philosophical contradictions. The majority of related scholarly literature does not address the political and historical complexity
of environmental justice. Such literature also simplifies understanding of the issue as being simply a matter of environmental racism
and too often limits analysis to a superficial distribution of hazards.
An oversimplified notion of environmental racism obscures more complex ecological processes in which racism intersects with other
forms of oppression. Laura Pulido critiques influential environmental racism literature by highlighting conceptual flaws imbedded in
such an understanding. First, racism is simplified as consisting solely of overt actions as opposed to also, and perhaps more
importantly, being institutionalized within economic, educational, and political systems. Related to this, racism is neglected as an
ideology and portrayed as fixed, without mobility or change. The predominant concept of environmental racism also suggests the
existence of a clear and wholly oppositional political and cultural line between white society and communities of color. Accordingly,
some studies of environmental justice movement romanticize struggling communities of color as a cohesive entity in opposition to a
white-dominated society. Neglected are difficult discussions about internal power structures, identity politics, and ideological
disparities that confront communities of color.

FOCUS ON INTENTIONAL ACTS OF RACISM – SUCH AS SITING DECISIONS – IGNORES UNDERLYING RACISM
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 86
As Pulido (1996) observed, such studies assume that if minority populations moved into neighborhoods after the siting of toxic
facilities or waste dumps, they can rule out discriminatory intent in siting and thus cast doubt on the possibility of environmental
racism. While some of these studies recognize that discrimination in housing and job markets might also contribute to environmental
inequalities, several critics contend that limiting environmental racism to discrimination in its various forms neglects deeper, more
complex processes and contexts. In addition, reductionist definitions fail to engage with recent theoretical insights into the social
production of geographic scale.

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM EMPHASIZES RACIST OUTCOMES – I.E. DIFFERENTIAL EXPOSURE TO
POLLUTANTS – IGNORES IDEOLOGY OF RACISM
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 45
A different interpretation of racism, and a different racial project, is illustrated by the scholarship surrounding environmental racism.
By stressing racist outcomes, or discrimination, almost to the exclusion of ideology, environmental justice activists have created a
situation where statistics are being used to confirm or deny the existence of racism. The research framework, however, is predicated
on finding racial patterns in which racial minority groups, defined by the US census, are impacted to a statistically significant degree
by various forms of pollution. According to this conceptualization, should statistical test not indicate significant disproportionate
exposure, racism does not exist.




                                                                                                                                        62
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                      Focus on Siting Decisions/Intentional Acts Ignores Underlying Racism p. 2/2

MANY FACTORS OTHER THAN SITING DECISIONS IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 86
Other recent historical studies have explored how land-use zoning, real estate dynamics, and other aspects of industrial development,
city planning, and demographic change contribute to current patterns of environmental inequality in United States cities.




                                                                                                                                    63
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
               Focus on Deliberate Racist Outcomes Diverts Racism Debate to one Over Study Methodology

EMPHASIS ON STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF RACISM IN SITING DECISIONS DIVERTS THE DEBATE AWAY
FROM QUESTIONS OF JUSTICE TO QUESTIONS OF STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 111
A further threat has emerged in the form of industry-sponsored research and legal maneuvers which have sought to oppose the claims
and activities of the environmental justice movement. As Goldman (1996:132) notes, polluting industries and their allies in waste
management have engaged a range of ―expert‖ commentators in order to deflect the political arguments of environmental justice
activists with legal and scientific complexities: ―Now the academic guns have been loaded to defend the turf of expertise, raise the
threshold of entry into the debate, and ensure that the burden of proof remains squarely on the backs of the victims of pollution.‖ Here
we have a struggle to contain the impact of lifeworld values and contain the environmental problematic within the administrative state
and its professional ancillaries.

DEBATE OVER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO COMPARING METHODOLOGIES – ZIP
CODES VERSUS CENSUS TRACTS TO PROVE WHETHER RACISM EXISTS OR NOT
J. B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, 1999, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum,
Spring, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 161, p. 180-1
   By contrast, environmental justice increasingly defines itself according to a far narrower set of indicators than does sustainable
development. Little is heard from environmental justice advocates today about the sweeping, all-inclusive agenda statements of the
early 1990s. Rather, environmental justice studies focus repeatedly on multivariate statistical analyses of localized demographic
indicators involving race, income, exposure to toxics, and receipt of environmental protection resources. n80 Most current
environmental justice policy analyses identify demographic imbalances in environmental quality and protection that operate on
relatively small scales of study, and as such are subject to almost endless debate over study method. n81 For example, one of the
recurring debates in environmental justice dialogue is whether zip code or census tracts provide the better study unit for
environmental justice measurements. n82 And the already narrow demographic approach increasingly has become more microscopic
in focus. For example, EPA has adopted a site-specific demographic statistics approach for its use in determining whether individual
state or local environmental permit decisions have disproportionate impacts on racial minority populations. n83 The focus of
environmental justice thus is increasingly on site-specific analyses of a narrow set of demographic indicators, with race as the
overarching theme of study and description. n84

EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM RESEARCH METHODOLOGICALLY FLAWED
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 83
Statistical and GIS-based studies of demographic patterns and toxic sites, which helped activists convince federal agencies to adopt an
environmental justice agenda in the first place (Foreman, 1998), remain prominent within the field (useful reviews in McCaster et al,
1997; Szasz and Meuser, 1997; Daniels and Friedman, 1999). Although a few scholars continue to frame their research as tests for the
existence of environmental injustice, inequity, or racism, others explicitly or implicitly conceive their research as tests of claims that
some populations bear environmental burdens disproportionately at a certain scale or multiple scales of analysis (e.g., Anderton et 1l,
1997; Boer et al, 1997; Daniels and Friedman, 1999; Sadd et all, 1999a; Tievenbacher and Hagelman, 1999). In addition, a few have
challenged the traditional domains of environmental justice research by venturing beyond EPA databases, such as Tarrant and Cordell
(1999) in their exploration of outdoor recreation sites. Numerous well-documented methodological difficulties plague this body of
work, including spatially autocorrelated data and the modifiable areal unit problem, inaccurate and incomplete data sources,
inconsistent variable selection, and uncertainty about whether proximity to hazards provides a reliable estimate of risk. Because such
problems have led to conflicting results, critics and sympathizers of the environmental justice movement have each accused the other
side of using questionable methodologies.




                                                                                                                                       64
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                     Focus on Distribution of Environmental Harms Ignores Procedural Racism p. 1/2

FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL INEQUITIES AS ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM MASKS UNDERLYING
INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 17-8
People of color in the environmental justice movement have articulated a broad but problematic conceptualization of racism that has
allowed racism to subsume and become a metaphor for all forms of inequality impacting nonwhite groups. Activists are acutely aware
that racism is manifest in every corner of society and that racist attitudes are deeply entrenched and institutionalized, but they have not
developed a textured understanding of how racism interacts with various economic forces and hegemonic forms of cultural life.
Instead, they have emphasized overt forms of discrimination, as evidenced in a growing literature which seeks to affirm or refute the
existence of racist pollution and hazardous land use patterns. Within this framework, racism exists if ―race‖ is shown to be a
statistically significant variable in pollution and siting patterns. If not statistically significant, then racism does not exist even though
class might be a factor. In this scenario, racism and class structure are almost autonomous. Efforts to deny the existence of
environmental racism, as well as the larger history of racism and civil rights in the United States, have placed antiracist activists and
scholars in a defensive position, which partially explains this problematic framework.

FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM REMEDIES IGNORES UNDERLYING CAUSES OF INEQUITABLE
POLITICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL GOODS
Gerald Torres, Head Professor of Real Property Law, University of Texas Law School, 1996, The Journal of Law and Commerce,
15 J.L. & Com. 597, p. 609
   In a similar vein, critics argue that the distribution of harms may be attributable to the relative strength of the political participants.
Rearranging the distribution of political power to achieve a single substantive end without tying that strategy to a claim that the
process is illegitimately distorted still requires an assessment of what counts as illegitimate. The fact that poor people have suffered in
the political distribution of social goods is not unusual. It has, in fact, become a major criticism of our present system of
representation. Moreover, the current voting rights scholarship goes far in outlining theories of "political market failure" n31 that
challenge our supposed general commitment to popular sovereignty. n32

FOCUS ON EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS MASKS TRUE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM
Gerald Torres, Head Professor of Real Property Law, University of Texas Law School, 1996, The Journal of Law and Commerce,
15 J.L. & Com. 597, p. 609-10
   Kent Jeffreys, a Senior Fellow with the Center for Policy Analysis, makes a different claim. His criticism is tied directly to the
agenda of the mainstream environmental groups. According to his analysis, environmental racism can more accurately be labeled
environmental elitism. n33 Class privilege is at the heart of the disparities that environmental justice advocates observe n34 and
thus, voluntary actions and the market provide the best hope for solutions, rather than the continued "over politicization" of
environmental issues. n35 Most of the disproportionate effects cannot be traced to the history of prior discrimination in
environmental decision-making. Instead, Jeffreys argues that the complaints of environmental justice advocates are more clearly
traceable to sectoral discrimination in other parts of the economy and distribution of social goods. For evidence he points to the
political effort of minority groups which has not been focused on environmental issues, but on socio-economic issues. According to
Jeffreys, this has led to a politicization of environmental issues within a racialized context that is misplaced because it distracts both
activists and policy makers from actions that would directly address the economic roots of the disparate impact of environmental
burdens. n36




                                                                                                                                           65
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                     Focus on Distribution of Environmental Harms Ignores Procedural Racism p. 2/2

FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENTAL‖ RACISM INSUFFICIENT – DISTRACTS FROM BROADER ISSUE OF RACISM
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 825-6
   The pursuit of "environmental justice" within the context of environmental law is necessarily problematic because to define the
issue exclusively in those terms misapprehends the nature of the problem in the first instance. The distributional inequities that appear
to exist in environmental protection are undoubtedly the product of broader social forces. To be sure, features endemic to the ways in
which environmental protection laws have historically been fashioned may have exacerbated the problem in the environmental
context. But the origins of the resulting distributional disparities do not begin, nor will they end, with reforming either the structure of
environmental protection decisionmaking or the substance of environmental law itself.
   Hence, while a series of measures within the environmental law arena have the potential for redressing or, at least reducing, the
existing distributional inequities, their undertaking cannot be to the exclusion of more broadly directed actions. Distributional
inequities are very likely rooted in past and present racial hostility, racial stereotypes, and other forms of race discrimination. The
vestiges of past discrimination may be the greatest factor contributing to such disparities because of the self-perpetuating impact of
such discrimination on racial minority economic [*826] and political power. These vestiges effectively deny minorities the autonomy
to choose, either by purchase or through the ballot, the level of environmental quality that they will enjoy or the amount of pollution
that they will tolerate.




                                                                                                                                         66
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
     Whites Feel More Comfortable Viewing This as an Environmental Issue – Ignore Their Own Complicity in Racism

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGIES ISOLATE RACISM EFFECTS FROM THOSE RESULTING FROM
ECONOMIC CLASS
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 192-
3
For this reason, subaltern environmental struggles are not strictly environmental. Instead, they are about challenging the various lines
of domination that produce the environmental conflict or problem experienced by the oppressed group in the first place. Since they
must confront multiple sources of domination that include economic marginalization, patriarchy, nationalism, or racism, it is difficult
to discern where the environmental part of a struggle begins and where it ends. Indeed, trying to do so may misrepresent the very
nature of the struggle as it suggests that environmental encounters are not colored by political economic structures. This tendency to
disaggregate environmental concerns, is a reflection of mainstream environmentalism‘s propensity to deny that its own environmental
interactions are couched within a context of political economic privilege.




                                                                                                                                     67
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                Can‘t Promote Social Justice or Solve Racism by Focusing on Environmental Policies p. 1/2

USING DIFFERENTIAL POLLUTION EXPOSURE TO SUBSTANTIATE RACIST CLAIMS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE –
IGNORES IMPORTANT INTERSECTIONALITIES OF OPPRESSION
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 45-6
There is no denying the important policy implications of such findings, but it is equally important to uncover the underlying motives
or racial projects to which such research contributes. Clearly, there are those who seek to debunk the racist hypothesis because they
do not want to see nonwhites make any additional moral or material claims upon either the state of white society. In fact, pollution
exposure itself may not even be the central concern, but its role in substantiating racist claims is what is problematic to some.
Those who insist on the existence of racism are also partaking in a racial project. By confirming environmental racism, scholars and
activists hope to pressure the state into solving the pollution problem, provide more employment opportunities for nonwhites, redirect
policy to enhance nonwhite communities, and provide funds to nonwhite environmental initiatives. Clearly, they are trying to funnel
more resources and power to subordinate racial groups.
But by cutting racism off from its ideological roots and insisting on the primacy of racism over class, we fail to acknowledge the
different types of racism that exist. Consequently, it is assumed that the racism that a Chicano executive encounters is the same
racism than an undocumented worker selling fruit on the street corner experiences. They are not. Racism combined with marginal
economic status creates subalternity. David Harvey (1993) provides a useful insight into comprehending the efforts of environmental-
justice activists to reify ―race.‖ He notes that an oppressive identity (such as racism) may sometimes be instrumental to a victims
―sense of livelihood. Perpetuation of that sense of self and identity may depend on perpetuation on the processes which gave rise to
it.‖

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CAN‘T BE ACHIEVED BY FOCUSING ON THE ENVIRONMENT – MUST ADDRESS
ROOT CAUSES OF SOCIETAL RACISM
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. 857
   Hence, for the same reason that environmental justice cannot be effectively redressed solely within the environmental law context,
its message must be understood as not being confined to that discrete area of the law. Environmental justice reinforces the
continuing and compelling need for measures aimed at eliminating racial discrimination and its self-perpetuating vestiges on the
broadest social scale. It confirms the pervasiveness of the distributional problems that persist and their racial origins. The problem is
not one confined to a few discrete areas. The effects linger far beyond where one lives, goes to school, and works to include the price
one pays for a car, the interest paid on a mortgage, and, it now appears, even the quality of the air one breathes and the water one
drinks.
   A full redressing of those distributional inequities that currently seem to exist in environmental protection will, therefore,
necessarily occur only with a change of present attitudes, including those rooted in racial stereotypes. n321 It will likewise depend on
effective redressing of the vestiges of past discrimination. This includes efforts directed at facilitating or enhancing minority market
and political power, their access to information, educational facilities, and the other advantages of life, including enjoyment of the
natural environment. n322 It may also require reform of some civil rights laws to facilitate the bringing of racial discrimination
claims. n323 The extent to which the pursuit of environmental justice furthers this far more important and ambitious undertaking
should be the ultimate measure of its success. n324

AMERICAN STYLE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTION INEFFECTIVE – DOES NOT CHALLENGE ROOT
CAUSES OF RACISM
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 193
These particular case studies are especially illustrative because there is no consensus on what the environmentally correct position is.
This ambiguity allows us to focus on the unifying themes of subaltern organizing rather than on the issue itself. While it is relatively
easy to understand opposition to an incinerator, we must instead grapple with the underlying meanings and motivations of often
contradictory mobilizations. This is not meant to discredit anti-incinerator efforts that have been quite significant in empowering
people. Rather, there is little mystery as to why many communities reject such land use. People are resisting the risks, pollution,
anxiety, and uncertainty posed by such land uses along with the perceived political insult that such facilities represent to low-income
and minority communities. These issues have served as a powerful force in mobilizing and empowering active development
strategies, they do not necessarily change the material circumstances that create and sustain inequality.




                                                                                                                                       68
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                  TURN: FOCUS ON ―ENVIRONMENT‖ UNDERMINES SOLUTION TO ―RACISM‖
                Can‘t Promote Social Justice or Solve Racism by Focusing on Environmental Policies p. 2/2

FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENT INEFFECTIVE WAY TO MOBILIZE GROUPS TO RESIST RACIAL OPPRESSION
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 209
The idea that all those involved in oppositional politics can form a counterhegemonic plurality intent on creating radical change is
highly doubtful and perhaps of limited efficacy. Even opening ourselves up to other ways of being, and becoming more aware of the
oppression of others, does not guarantee that we will reach any level of political agreement. It is not inevitable that mainstream
environmentalism will necessarily be supportive of subaltern struggles, and to presume that it will be entirely ignores the questions of
positionality. Given that there are a multitude of ways to ―save‖ the environment, a desire for environmental quality may not be
strong enough to unite, even temporarily, diverse groups. This is unfortunate for both the environment and for subaltern communities.

MORE PRESSING ISSUES TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES THAN ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Colleen Chien, Washington Internships for Students of Engineering, 1994, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Environmental Justice: Implications for Industrial Siting Policy, http://www.aiche.org/government/wise/chien.htm
The search for a root cause of environmental justice has led to the recognition that the environment is only one of a number of
concerns facing poor and minority communities. In many cases, economic development, job creation, and opportunities offered by
industry represent more pressing issues to communities, and these interests must be considered in the formulation of policies intended
to remedy environmental injustice. Balancing community interests, enforcing existing environmental laws, and allowing industries
and communities to work together, along with conducting ongoing studies of the ―problem‖ will make for a more effective and
equitable solution.




                                                                                                                                     69
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                TURN: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOCUS OF EJ UNDERMINES JUSTICE: Front Line

A. POSITIONING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WITHIN A PARADIGM OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE – DISTRACTS FROM REAL JUSTICE
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 6-7
Many justice discourses in the environmental sustainability debate, as in other debates outside the sustainability discourse, appear to
be primarily concerned with distribution; distribution of something. This is perhaps because many discourses of justice still remain
within the distributive paradigm. Given the fact that there are all sorts of disparities and asymmetries not only within societies but
also between societies, the cry for distributional justice remains the dominant form of protest. But justice exclusively seen in the
context of a distributive paradigm is reductive and problematic, and may actually deter or distract us form other ways of looking at
justice.

B. FOCUS ON DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE UNDERMINES CAUSES RE-DISTRIBUTION OF HARMS – STRENGTHENS
POLLUTING INDUSTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 111-2
The environmental justice movement also faces a number of internally generated challenges and threats. There is a need for the
movement to better define its political-ethical purpose: many commentators and activists now argue that its established focus on the
distribution of environmental well-being has actually entrenched the political power of polluting industry and waste management
corporations. As both Heiman (1996) and Cutter (1995) have noted, the movement has tended to pursue ‗environmental equity‘,
meaning the equitable distribution of negative externalities. Heiman argues that the realization of this political goal will hardly trouble
polluting industry, which after adjusting its locational prerogatives, will resume its risk generating production, only with the EAP
assurance of fair equality of opportunity to pollute and be polluted (Heiman, 1996: 114).




                                                                                                                                       70
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                          TURN: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOCUS OF EJ UNDERMINES JUSTICE
                                   Assumptions of Distributive Justice Paradigm Flawed

PREDOMINANT DISCOURSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM – DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE -- INSUFFICIENT
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 9
The Skull Valley case reveals theoretical defects in the predominant discourse of environmental racism. Skull Valley‘s toxic landscape
has developed historically within a context of social processes conditioned by the ideology and institutions of racism. It is not simply
a matter of personal choice on the part of individuals and intentional actions by electric utilities and by the federal government to
target a powerless tribe (although such choices have, of course, been exercised historically) for the siting of nuclear waste.
Institutional racism is a concept that takes into account the systems and systemic practices of governments and private capital,
institutions and practices that spatially reproduce racism. It is the effects of institutionalized racism that have created the economic
and ecological landscape of Skull Valley. Therefore, the home of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians was already zoned to be
the nation‘s and the state‘s sacrifice area. The tribe has experienced the effects of structural racism over a period that far predates the
current conflict involving nuclear waste. Add to this the political debate surrounding tribal sovereignty and the Skull Valley case
reveals that the discussion of environmental justice based solely on a definition of distributive justice is insufficient.




                                                                                                                                        71
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                          TURN: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOCUS OF EJ UNDERMINES JUSTICE
                              Distributive Justice Ignores Procedural Justice – Critical to Solve

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE‘S EMPHASIS ON DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE UNDERMINES ITS POTENTIAL AS A
REMEDY FO RACISM – EMPOWERING MINORITY GROUPS KEY
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 3
Moreover, early environmental justice scholarship has been dominated by the theory of distributive justice that problematizes the
unequal allocation of hazards based on the racial and economic characteristics of communities. It has been said that such literature
―make(s) clear the …belief that the ‗environment‘ is no more – and certainly no less -- than a particular form of the goods and bads
that society must divide among its members.‖ Overall, the analytical framework of distributive justice has downplayed complicating
issues of class, social relations, and broader historical, cultural, and ideological contexts. In order to clarify the broader context, the
concept of procedural justice should be further elaborated. A crucial criticism has been made that ―redistributing outcomes will not
achieve environmental justice unless it is accompanied and indeed, preceded by a procedural redistribution of power in decision-
making…procedural equity entails full democratic participation not only in decisions affecting distributive outcomes but also, and
more importantly, in a gamut of prior decisions affecting the production of costs and benefits to be distributed.‖
In summary, environmental and social justice are determined not simply by the equal distribution of environmental risks and benefits.
Rather, justice is also determined by meaningful community participation as opposed to intended or structural exclusion from social
processes and political and economic decision-making (to use Skull Valley as an example) in decisions related to the production,
siting, and management of radioactive waste.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES FAIL – FOCUS ON DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE TRADES OFF WITH
COUNTERING OPPRESSION
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 46
This conceptualization of racism, anchored in documenting racist outcomes, and its concomitant racial project is based on what Iris
Young (1990) has called a material distribution strategy that emphasizes a redistribution of resources rather than countering
oppression. Challenging racist ideology (an undoubtedly difficult task) would focus on the social and cultural practices that render
some as the other, and on the system of racist ideology as a whole. Instead, the predominant racial project of nonwhites seems to both
essentialize and concretize racial identities and differences. Regardless of which racial project is in question, both have material
consequences and are struggles over the nature and power of various identities.




                                                                                                                                        72
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                          TURN: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOCUS OF EJ UNDERMINES JUSTICE
                            Distributional Focus Just Shifts Harms to Other Less Powerful Groups

FOCUS ON DISTRIBUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS EXACERBATES RACIAL AND CLASS DISPARITIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 113
An additional internal problem for the environmental movement exists in the very scale of its considerable political success to date.
The vast socio-political reach of the contemporary movement is evidenced by the profusion of grassroots activist groups and
information dissemination networks (including a well-supported internet web site, ―EcoNet‖). However, without a clear-sighted
understanding of the meaning of ―justice‖ there is a danger that the ‗mainstreaming‘ of opposition to the environmental risks will
further worsen racial and class disparities. To adapt Marx‘s observation, where rights conflict as they inevitably do, power can all too
easily decide:
As more communities try to block sites and prevent pollution in their backyards, those with the least political and economic power
will be left with an even greater share of the toxic residues from our modern society…As manufacturers downsize and consolidate
their facilities, the plants posing the greatest potential hazards are likely to be left in communities that fit a particular demographic
profile. (Goldman, 1996: 128).

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE ESSENTIALLY JUST RE-DISTRIBUTES THE HARMS
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 35
One observation about the current treatment of environmental problems to which Dryzek devotes much attention should alert us
immediately to the importance of justice as an ethical issue: the tendency of ―displacement‖. Dryzek uses the problem of acid rain as
the paradigm of an ecological problem. The problem may be ‗solved‘ by shifting the impact of its effect. Thus the ‗problem‘ of sulfur
dioxide emissions is ‗solved‘ by building tall smokestacks: ‗Instead of polluting areas adjacent to copper smelters in Utah or coal-
burning power stations in Ohio, the sulfur dioxide ends up in the form of acid rain in rural areas such as the Rocky Mountains or the
Adirondacks‘.
Dryzek notes three forms of displacement. First, the problem may be displaced in space. Toxic waste is shifted from dump to another
or from one country to another. In more general terms, polluting and environmentally damaging industry is shifted to countries with
weak environmental standards. From examples given in Chapter 1, mining at Ok Tedi causes a displacement of the environmental
costs of the use of raw materials to a country which is prepared to trade environment for ‗development.‘ Second, an environmental
problem may be ‗solved‘ by displacing the problem to another medium. The problem of disposal of the oil rig, Brent Spar, was
‗solved‘ by reversing the decision to dump the rig in the sea and displacing the problem to be dealt with on land and in the air. Third, a
problem may be solved by displacing it into the future. French nuclear testing in the Pacific will almost certainly create a future
problem of radiation leakage, though how far in the future the problem will become manifest can only be guessed.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES INEVITABLY INVOLVE TRADEOFFS THAT DISADVANTAGE OTHER
GROUPS
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 9
The Skull Valley case illustrates the complex nature of environmental justice, since justice for one group can mean injustice for
another politically and geographically distinct group. This case study presents a more complex rendition than those presented in the
majority of existing literature that analyze environmental racism and distributive notions of environmental justice. In the Skull Valley
case, and probably in many others, environmental justice must be examined in relation to community demands for self-determination.
In addition, the history of colonization of the Goshutes and of the landscape in which they live has structurally limited the capability
of the tribe to achieve economic and environmental self-determination.




                                                                                                                                       73
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                          TURN: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE FOCUS OF EJ UNDERMINES JUSTICE
                                    Distributive Justice Policies Thwarted by Capitalism

CAPITALISM PRECLUDES ACHIEVEMENT OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE GOALS
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 106
Other geographers, notably Badcock, sought to explain territorial injustice in capitalist societies through resort to political economy
(especially Marxian social theory). The difficult ethical questions of justice were set aside in favor of structural explanations focusing
mainly on unequal power. Harvey‘s earlier work helped establish a range of social scientific analyses which has sought to describe
and explain the racial and class inequality in the distribution of well-being, most acutely represented in studies of the North American
―ghetto‖. Both Badcock (1984) and Harvey (1973) have characterized the capitalist city as a ―resource distributing mechanism‘,
highlighting how economic structures (e.g. relations of production) and institutionalized power (e.g. state forms) are inscribed in the
urban form through differentiated patterns of well-being. The urban political economy approach demonstrated the capacity of the
capitalist urban system to thwart the redistributive objectives desired by welfarist policy. As a spatial concentration of market
mechanisms and social power structures, the city was an unmistakable revelation of the tendency of capitalism to distribute socio-
economic and environmental resources unevenly. Related analyses pointed to the ways in which social power was articulated in urban
communal struggles over the distribution of environmental and economic resources. Several commentators, for example, have
observed how certain state institutional mechanisms, especially planning regulations, are used by the privileged classes to keep
noxious land uses away from the places they occupy and concentrate such uses in poor and working-class neighborhoods.




                                                                                                                                       74
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                  TURN: INVESTMENT IN MINORITIES COMMUNITIES

TURN: INCORPORATING DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS INTO DECISION-MAKING REDUCES INVESTMENT IN
MINORITIES COMMUNITIES
Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas & Chair of Department
of Economics University of Central Arkansas, 2000, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 24 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 67, p. 77
  The potential legal and management impact of the Guidance is enormous because it is clearly relevant to permit renewals.
Consequently, under the Guidance, disparate impact claims may be brought directly in federal court long after permits have been
issued. Jeopardizing existing permits by giving retroactive reach to environmental justice claims is likely to cause considerable
reluctance in related capital investment decisions. Although unfortunate, a likely result is the abandonment of otherwise beneficial
economic development in the same minority and low-income communities that Title VI was intended to benefit. n63 In fact, Detroit
Mayor Dennis Archer is pushing to scale back federal involvement in environmental justice cases because he wants to attract
industry to minority neighborhoods. n64 Press reports indicate that some manufacturers are avoiding black areas because of the
interim guidance. n65




                                                                                                                                  75
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                   TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Front Line

A. POLITICAL SUCCESS OF EJ MOVEMENTS IN THE US CAUSES SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 122-3
Pulido (1996) has observed that the political success of the environmental movement in developed countries may actually accelerate
the relocation of hazardous industries to developing nations. Environmental regulations are increasingly cited by US firms as a reason
for their flight to more ―business friendly‖ countries, such as Mexico. The profits from industrial plants, as well as their products, are
largely exported to the country of the operating firm. The developing nation which hosts the facility retains a quantum of wage and
land rent income, but incurs some input expenditure and the risks and consequences which attach to the hazardous industry. A critical
aspect of this system of flows, involving the circulation of money, products and risk, is the fact that it permits developed countries to
externalize industrial risks by moving hazardous forms of production beyond their borders. In such instances, firms enhance their
profits through the imposition of ―cross-border externalities‖, given that the nations which host hazardous production may never be
fully compensated for the spillover effects of these activities (i.e, environmental degradation, social dislocation.)

B. SHIFT UNDERMINES JUSTICE – WORSENS GLOBAL INEQUITIES
Suttles, Deputy Director of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, Winter 2002 (Tulane Environmental Law Journal)
Of the four facilitating factors, regulatory differentials most directly implicate environmental justice concerns. Assuming precisely the
same or similar products can be produced in one country or another, companies will tend to seek the least burdensome regulatory
environment in which the factor costs (including the costs of legal compliance and wage levels) reach their lowest possible point. n40
If differences between the costs of regulatory compliance and production [*10] factors are nonexistent or slight, firms are unlikely to
incur additional sunk costs (especially in capital intensive operations) and transaction costs associated with cross border relocation.
n41 Thus, firms are most likely to move when the regulatory and wage disparities between countries are greatest.
The race to the bottom effect, then, depends upon and derives from power imbalances within and between nations; essentially, "the
race to the bottom effect depends upon how weak labor is elsewhere, period." n42 The resulting downward spiral of labor exploitation
and diminishing occupational safety and health regulation exacerbates the imbalance between developed and developing nations and
qualifies as precisely the type of disparity against which the environmental justice movement contends. "In other words, a race to the
bottom occurs with global standards forced ever lower by the centripetal forces of multinational rivalry. In the process, human rights
and justice suffer." n43
Indeed, global race theorists define "justice," as a countervailing force necessary to stem an ungoverned race to the bottom in terms
remarkably similar to the themes that resonate throughout the environmental justice movement. Addressing the prospects for justice in
the context of multinational corporate competition, Debora Spar and David Yoffie explain:
When we speak of justice, we are referring to the basic conditions of human livelihood, to the political and economic factors that
expand the realm of human choice and possibility. Our definition of justice, based on the United Nations' description of human
development, is the process of enlarging people's choices, ensuring access to basic resources and providing citizens with education and
the ability to live a healthy life. n44
 The "global justice" polemic, therefore, directly links political concerns for justice with civil liberties, which also forms one of the
cornerstones of the environmental justice movement. n45




                                                                                                                                       76
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                       TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                             Link: Phasing Out of Coal Causes Shift of Coal to Developing Countries

REDUCING COAL IN THE US CAUSES SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -- RACIST
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 639
  There are historical and current bases for the fear of becoming a "dumping ground." Developed countries have a history of exporting
their pollution-intensive industries and less efficient technology to developing countries with lower environmental standards. n212
Africa might well assume the role of a pollution haven in the energy sector as the expected explosive growth of this sector in
developing countries creates an increasingly "powerful incentive" to relocate coal technology to countries that have weak enforcement
standards or capabilities and are not subject to the Kyoto emissions cap. n213 Once a capital-intensive coal infrastructure is built, it
tends to remain in place for many, many decades; thus, such transfers have the potential to undermine local preferences and saddle the
developing countries with expensive, outmoded, pollution-intensive energy technology that will constrain their environmental choices
for years. n214

RESTRICTIONS ON COAL COMPANIES HERE CAUSE A SHIFT TO AFRICA – USE CDMS TO DEVELOP COAL-
BASED FUEL
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 643
  Government-subsidized technology development tends to reflect both an industry export agenda and the global trend toward
deregulation of the utility industries in the developed countries. Coal companies in the developed countries are well positioned to take
advantage of the opportunity presented by the CDM, due to the increasing consolidation and internationalization of the industry and a
trend to do business through foreign affiliates. n252 Moreover, in response to deregulation, coal companies, which supply the fuel that
currently dominates the electricity industry, n253 seek to reduce their price risk by diversifying their customer base. n254 One way to
do this is to export more coal, n255 which has encountered increasing opposition from environmentalists in developed countries and is
now primarily a local or regional fuel due to high transportation costs. n256 Industry involvement in developing new technologies that
decrease transportation costs and reduce environmental impacts helps to promote the export model for coal. n257

BUSH ENERGY PLAN INCLUDES EMPHASIS ON EXPORTING ―CLEAN COAL‖ APPROACH TO DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 643-4
  An export agenda is apparent in the energy-industry cooperation that occurred [*644] after George W. Bush was elected to the U.S.
Presidency in 2000. Bush decisively repudiated the Kyoto Protocol after his election in 2000, citing the Protocol's impacts on the
competitiveness of U.S. industries and the lack of adequate, cost-effective technology to reduce GHG emissions. n258 The Bush
Administration then stepped up government funding for coal technologies vis-a-vis the funding for renewable energy technologies.
n259 This current emphasis on coal technology derives both from a policy to reduce dependence on imported oil and an export
agenda: One of President Bush's persistent themes is that coal, which is plentiful in the U.S., can be used as a primary industrial fuel
without causing pollution or climate change and that the "clean coal" approach should be exported to developing countries. n260




                                                                                                                                      77
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                       TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                              Link: EJ Success Against Polluting Industries in the US Causes Shift

SUCCESS AGAINST POLLUTING INDUSTRIES IN THE US CAUSES SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 119
Vexed industrialists and state technocrats now characterize the ever extensive hostility towards LULUs as ―NIABY‖ (Not in Anyone‘s
Backyard) or even ―NOPE‖ (Not On Planet Earth). What are the consequences of this increasingly pervasive opposition to LULUs
for the risk society? First, we must ask ―which risk society?‖ because the growing resistance of local communities toward LULUs has
not cohered – at least not yet – as a political movement which can transform the hazardous nature of industrial production itself.
Firms are still relatively free to produce, only now they must find new places, outside the nation of NIMBYism, in which to do this.
As Goldman observes, the increasingly pervasive and potent mood of NIMBYism across the United States has meant that,
―corporations are even more likely to move the most noxious plants to less developed countries, where even poorer communities of
color will be the hosts‘ (1996: 128). In this way, or course, risk-producing firms escape both inhibitive environmental regulation and
social resistance to their presence.
What are the consequences of this export of risk? Can there be any global environmental justice when developed countries export
their waste and hazardous industries to underdeveloped regions? In the next section we examine these questions, and other ethical
implications which arise from the international traffic in risk.




                                                                                                                                   78
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                         TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                          Link: Distributive Justice Focus Causes Shift

SUCCESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS AT ACHIEVING DISTRIBITUVE JUSTICE IN THE US
CAUSES SHIFT OF HAZARDS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 131
In short, the political critique within developed countries must be shifted from the special allocation of risk to the production of risk.
Failing this, the environmental justice movement of the United States, for example, will find itself trapped in the politics of
distributional justice (i.e. the LULU problem) that ultimately cannot secure universal justice for all human communities and the global
environment. At present, the diverse US environmental justice movement, in concert with a more popular opposition to LULUs, has
managed only to ―half-transcend‖ the distributional politics of place. The combined effect of these popular and institutional forces
may have created a ‗landscape of resistance‘ for risk-producing and risk-managing industries, but this achievement may only have
served to ensure that environmental hazards are exported to more ―accepting‖ landscapes, including developing countries.




                                                                                                                                       79
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                        TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                                      Link: Stronger Environmental Standards Causes Shift

STRENGTHENING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ENCOURAGES CORPORATE SHIFTS
Martin W. Lewis, Assistant Professor Geography @ GWU, 1992, Green Delusions: an environmentalist critique of radical
environmentalism, p. 108
The problem, however, is that social control is not easily applied to a corporation with dispersed production centers, much less to one
without a single administrative core. If too much pressure for environmental cleansing is placed in one region, a firm may simply
relocate its operations to more congenial political environments. There are also social hazards; ―the darker side of cosmopolitanism,‖
Reich informs us, in that elite ―world citizens‖ may never ―develop the habits and attitudes of social responsibility.‖ To my mind,
such potential problems only strengthen the argument made above in favor of stronger global authority.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CAUSES RELOCATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Stewart, Professor of Law at NYU, June 1993 (Yale Law Journal)
Variations in the stringency of different nations' environmental measures have potentially important implications for international trade and investment. On standard economic
                                                                                                                          industries in nations with higher
assumptions, putting aside for the moment markets for "green" technologies created by environmental regulation and liability rules,
assimilative capacity and less stringent environmental regulation and liability rules will face lower compliance costs and enjoy a
comparative advantage in international product competition. New industrial facilities will have a tendency to locate in nations
with lower compliance costs, until these nations' assimilative capacities decrease and compliance costs increase to the level of other nations. n78 These are the essential
features of what we may call the international market in comparative assimilative capacity. The actual extent of any such comparative advantage and locational adjustment is an empirical
question that is addressed in Part III below.


ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ENCOURAGE SHIFT
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 122
The perceived ecological ‗over-development‘ of the west is intensifying, witnessed in the increasingly pervasive hostility of local
communities in advanced capitalist nations towards risk-producing land uses discussed above. The dilemma of the disposal of the
Brent Spar oil rig is a case in point. Given these centrifugal social and regulatory pressures, it should be no surprise that
environmental organizations are reporting a flourishing trade in toxic wastes, exported mainly from developed countries to developing
nations. Disturbingly, this traffic in risk involves both western waste-producing firms and western governments, the latter seeking to
dispose of hazardous industrial residues which their own regulations and polities will no longer accept.




                                                                                                                                                                                            80
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                                 TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                                               Link: Emissions Reductions Requirements Cause Shift

LINK – REGULATION OF GHG EMISSIONS CAUSES AN MNC SHIFT TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Environmental Law Institute 1997 (http://www.eli.org/pdf/grnhouse.pdf)
   Leakage occurs when sources subject to the regulatory system shift production to sources
   that are not covered by the regulatory system. This may be caused when larger firms shift
    production to smaller firms that are below regulatory thresholds, between industries from a
    regulated industry to one that is not, or      to a production facility beyond U.S. borders.
    The Experience of the Acid Rain ProgramTitle IV has experienced little leakage. First, Title IV covers all but the smallest plants, as it includes all existing plants over 25 megawatt capacity. The second source of
    leakage could be a problem under Title IV, as it does not cover industries which generate electricity for their own use.77 This may create an incentive for an industry to generate its own energy off-grid, but this
    effect is expected to be minor. There is little leakage of the third type, as it would be infeasible for utilities to generate a substantial amount of their power from plants located outside U.S. borders.
    Lessons for an Emissions Cap and Allowance Trading System for GHGs


    Leakage of CO2 is of concern in a GHG system principally if the industrial model is chosen. With the fuels model there is little leakage when all CO2-producing fuels are included
    and when importers as well as domestic producers are covered. In the fuels model, the only
    concerns may be leakage to small entities, which can be addressed in establishing an appropriate size for participating entities, and leakage created by shifting the production of energy intensive products to
    countries where the price effects of GHG policies may be lower. While the latter
    problem may be of concern, the price effects would need to be quite large to cause significant leakage. Concerns for an industrial model arise because only several large industries are included in the regulatory
    program, giving rise to several issues not present in Title IV, which covers only electric utilities. These are discussed briefly below. a. Prevent Leakage to Unregulated Small Sources The selection of industries to
    be included in the regulatory program is heavily influenced by the need to prevent leakage. As described above, the preferred option is a "deep and narrow" approach which includes all firms in key industries. The
    broader alternative system is to include the large plants in any industry, but this gives rise to a significant potential for leakage, as the large plants could shift production to smaller plants. The preferred option
    chosen for the industrial model includes almost all plants in the five key industries which have large, energy intensive plants. b. Prevent Leakage in Shifting Production Elements to Other Industries Even with an
    industrial model which regulates only key industries, leakage can occur if production elements are shifted to other, unregulated industries. For example, components
    currently manufactured at and considered part of the regulated industry could be purchased from an unregulated industrial source, or a participating firm could reorganize itself into a regulated entity and an
    unregulated entity at the same site. The magnitude of the potential leakage due to
    shifting production to unregulated sources requires further study. A similar concern involves power shifting, as industrial sources could transfer their compliance burden to electric utilities by switching some
    processes from fossil fuels to electricity. However, it may be that costs of the GHG allowances will simply be part of the negotiations between the utility and industrial source, as has already occurred under Title
    IV's opt-in provisions.78 A rolling baseline allocation system, described below in part III, or other allowance reallocation system would largely resolve this power switching problem by
    reallocating allowances according to actual use or emissions. c. Prevent Leakage to Foreign Competition, and Consider
    Competitiveness Impacts


    GHG regulation may initiate leakage by creating incentives to shift production abroad. A related problem is that firms may be vulnerable to
    competition from foreign firms producing the same or competing products if the foreign firms are not subject to GHG emissions reduction requirements. These concerns are not
    unique to an emissions cap and allowance trading system, but are common to all reduction polices as long as Annex I countries have more stringent targets. Ensuring that
    GHG emissions reduction requirements are implemented as cost-effectively as possible and in concert with actions by other countries is the only way to limit these concerns.


COMPANIES WILL EVADE EMISSION REDUCTION COSTS THROUGH LEGAL CIRCUMVENTION OR
RELOCATION
Abbott, Assistant to the President of International Boilermakers, 10/22/97 (FDCH)
  These emission reductions have come at a considerable cost to the U.S. economy. Many plants have added clean air equipment to meet existing
  standards. Other companies have escaped meeting the standards by using various legal schemes and are currently directed by EPA to comply with
  the clean air standards and comply with the law over the next few years. Other companies have packed up and left the United States, opting to move
  to Mexico or Asia.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                81
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                    TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
               US EJ Movement Increases Global Environmental Injustice—Must Have Global Focus to Succeed

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT IN THE US MUST BECOME GLOBALIZED—OR IT WILL BECOME A
FORCE USED AGAINST THE POOR IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 17
The environmental justice movement, although a localized, country-specific protest movement not only reflects structural
arrangements of that particular society but also gives legitimacy to the voices and concerns of the less privileged and environmental
victims – or potentially vulnerable to such victimization – of the world at large; a world where the economic and political order
resembles the same structures in its exclusion, marginalization and oppression of its lower one fifth population. For the message of
the movement to have any real impact and meaning in its truly globalized sense, it has to show awareness of and solidarity with the
big picture of injustices and will have to transcend the ‗politics of place‘ (Low and Gleeson, 1998). Without doing that, there is a real
danger that it can itself become a net contributor to injustices beyond the borders of its particular community of justice. This already
happens through the displacement of hazardous facilities to other lesser influential and powerful communities both within and outside
state borders.

NO SOLUTION TO SHIFT WITHOUT ADOPTING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND FOCUS
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 131-2
As we have shown, the traffic in waste and other environmentally injurious development is worsening international inequity and
helping to sustain risky industry throughout the globe. The absence of a supervising state – and the United Nations in its present
manifestation cannot yet perform this role – means that a distributional framework cannot be readily applied to the international traffic
in risk.. Those international agreements which have sought to control aspects of the traffic in risk, such as the Basel Convention ,
have been shown both to be vulnerable to political attacks by recalcitrant states and difficult to enforce. Epochal structural changes,
including economic globalization, the mobility of capital (and risk) and the collapse of Cold War antagonisms, have created a new
geo-political context for ecological politics:
We are on the threshold of a new phase of risk-society politics; in the context of disarmament and the relaxation of the East-West
tension, the apprehension and practice of politics can no longer be national but must be international, because the social mechanism of
hazard situation flouts the nation-state and its system of alliance. (Beck, 1995: 162).
Indeed, we argue that this new international political practice, of which Beck speaks, must seek to eliminate the flourishing traffic in
risk which in already worsening the legacy of global uneven development bequeathed by centuries of colonialism and capitalism.
This new ecological politics requires a new global institutional context which can both problematize the production of risk and
regulate the distribution of hazards between states. We consider the problematics of such an institutional context in Chapter 7.




                                                                                                                                       82
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                      TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                            US EJ Movement Insufficient to Prevent Shift Unless it Attacks Capitalism

CAPITALISM DRIVES THE SHIFT OF HAZARDS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 121-2
A broad tradition of social scientific analysis has examined the significant growth in investment by western industrial capital in
developing countries which has occurred since the Second World War. Many of these analyses have emphasized the relative cost
advantages (notably, the cheap supplies of labor power and raw materials) of developing countries for firms eager to escape the
perceived disadvantages of developed industrial regions in the west (especially, labor militancy, low productivity and high wages; see
for example, Massey, 1984). Fagan and Webber (1994) point to the other motivations behind the shift in western industrial
investment patterns, especially after 1970. Their analysis stresses that much of the investment undertaken by multinational capital,
transnational corporations (TNCs), outside the developed ―core‖ states ‗was designed to serve the growing domestic markets in
[developing countries] rather than for export.
As Smith and others have argued, this post-war shift is part of an established historical pattern, involving the see-sawing of productive
investment between declining and emergent regions and states, which has been a key feature of industrial capitalism since its genesis
in the eighteenth century. The importance of this analysis is that it shows that, rather than being a system tending toward equilibrium,
as utilitarian economists generally assume, capitalism depends at core on the maintenance of what complexity theorists term a ―far-
from-equilibrium‖ condition or, in Marxist terms ―uneven development‖.




                                                                                                                                      83
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                             TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                                              Impact: Shift Violates Environmental Justice

REDISTRIBUTION OF HARMS MEANS SHIFTING THE PROBLEM TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, VIOLATES
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 103-4
The distribution of such ‗unwanted land uses‘ can, of course, occur at a variety of scales: between communities, cities, regions, and
nations. Indeed, the increasingly effective hostility of local communities in western countries toward hazardous waste facilities has
encouraged an international trade which has sought to dump dangerous industrial by-products in developing nations. This ‗traffic in
risk‘ both imperils the well-being of the impoverished masses in developing countries, and also threatens to entrench the injustice of
global uneven development.

ASBESTOS PROVES THAT MNC SHIFT HAS IMPACTS WHICH GO TO THE HEART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE MOVEMENT
Suttles, Deputy Director of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, Winter 2002 (Tulane Environmental Law Journal)
Above any disputation and rhetoric, it remains abundantly clear that a global race to the bottom exists, at least relative to certain
especially pernicious industries. Empirical data proves that subsequent to significant regulation in the industrialized world, the
asbestos industry relocated processing and production facilities to the developing world. Concurrently, lesser developed countries that
supported asbestos industries reactively shifted exports of asbestos-containing materials from industrialized nations to Third World
trading partners. The relocation and reorientation of the asbestos trade and attendant dislocation of associated risks was driven,
accelerated, and magnified by [*64]transnational corporations assisted by trade facilitating multilateral agreements. Ultimately, the
disproportionate health risks and projections of devastating future asbestos mortality result from deliberate business decisions made by
transnational companies operating in the industrialized world to export a lethal trade to the Third World.
Against this sinister backdrop, an international community comprising individuals, nongovernmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations, as well as nation-states, emerged
exposing the pattern of deceit and misinformation perpetrated by the asbestos industry and interested governments, scientists, and lawyers. Regardless of whatever domestic or international
legal instruments may aid their struggle, in the end, environmental justice advocacy, to be effective, depends upon the movement itself. As one scholar emphatically declared, "It is more
important to build a movement correctly than to have a "correct' analysis or a "correct' set of demands." n405 Extolling a "bottom up" organizational approach, Professor Hahnel advocates the
""Lilliput strategy' where each constituency struggles to tie its own string to contain the "Gulliver' of global capital knowing (correctly) how weak and vulnerable that single string is without
the added strength of tens of thousands of similar strings." n406 International efforts to ban the use of asbestos and eliminate the disproportionate siting of hazardous asbestos industries in the
Third World will require networks of informed, affected individuals assisted by impartial medical and technical consultants or NGOs, with access to public and transparent fora to advocate
their concerns and interests. The requisite approaches and   the intrinsic interests echo the very origins, heart, and soul of the
environmental justice movement.




                                                                                                                                                                                                 84
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                     TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
             Impact: Shifting Coal Undermines African Energy Needs—Precludes Ability to Leapfrog Fossil Fuels

EXPORTING CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY TO AFRICA DOES LITTLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE RURAL
POOR
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 644
  What is frequently not mentioned is the poor fit between clean coal technology and the needs of the rural poor in African and other
developing countries. Subsidized fossil fuel technologies do not benefit rural populations that have little prospects of being connected
to a developing country's electrical grid. n261 Indeed, it might be "far less costly to subsidize the energy needs of the poor directly
than to subsidize fuels for all users." n262 An overriding investment in new fossil fuel technologies also would eliminate the
possibility of a beneficial "leapfrog effect." n263 Subsidizing governments frequently invoke the interests of the poor, but subsidies to
established industries tend to reflect pressures from privileged sectors of a society seeking cost containment and from companies
seeking to maximize their profits. n264

COAL EXPORTS PRECLUDE VITAL INVESTMENT IN AFRICAN ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 650-1
The main issue posed by the foregoing factors is how to promote equitable, environmentally sound economic development where it is
needed most. The African countries are the crux of this problem. It is in Africa that all of the challenges come together, presenting the
best opportunity for restructuring the Protocol and the CDM in a creative way.
  These largely undeveloped countries possess a not-to-be-missed opportunity to leapfrog over the archaic fossil fuel technologies that
have caused global environmental problems. However, their opportunity might indeed be missed because the small, undeveloped
markets and widespread poverty of these African countries deter foreign investment in the best technologies and encourage resource
exploitation, a higher-than-necessary level of pollution, and investment in low-level technologies, especially those related to coal.
These investments go hand in hand with the prospect that African countries might be locked in to expensive coal and other fossil-fuel
energy systems that will deter creative investments well into the future.




                                                                                                                                      85
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                          TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                            AT: Clean Coal Exports Will Benefit Africa

CLEAN COAL EXPORTS TO AFRICA WILL BECOME DIRTY COAL PLANTS IN PRACTICE
Patricia Nelson, Environmental Advocates, Fall, 2004, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y
615, p. 648-9
  This is likely to continue in the African energy development sector because power plant operators have no incentive for ongoing use
of clean coal technologies unless national regulations raise the cost of emitting carbon and other pollutants above the cost of using the
technology. n302 Even if "clean coal" technology is made available, the African countries might find themselves unable to take
advantage of it. If the United States' experience is any guide, a spike in natural gas prices or the reality of regulatory or other costs of
"clean coal" technology will promote an increased use of "dirty" coal capacity (which currently exist in abundance in South Africa)
and the construction of new facilities that can compete with these "dirty" facilities' low production costs, rather than expensive "clean
coal" facilities. n303 Africa's consumers have little economic clout, and its regulatory enforcement capacity is low. In the U.S., even
with far stronger, more environmentally oriented consumer markets, it has proved impossible to get power plant operators to use
completely available technology in the absence of the necessary regulatory incentives. n304




                                                                                                                                         86
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                       TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                  Impact: Shift Threatens Global Ecosystems and Food Supplies

BUSINESSES WILL RELOCATE TO NATIONS WITH LOTS OF NATURAL RESOURCES BUT FEW
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS – THIS THREATENS GLOBAL ECOSYSTEMS AND FOOD SUPPLIES
French, Worldwatch Institute, August 98
(http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25/095.html)
    Understanding the role of private capital flows in all of this is no simple matter. The environmental implications of this
    decade‘s massive movements of money into the developing world, while enormous, are also complex and somewhat
    contradictory. As investors search the globe for the highest return, they are often drawn to places endowed with bountiful
    natural resources but handicapped by weak or ineffective environmental laws. Many people and communities are harmed as the
    environment that sustains them is damaged or destroyed-villagers are displaced by large construction projects, for example, and
    indigenous peoples watch their homelands disappear as timber companies level old-growth forests. Foreign investment-fed
    growth also promotes western-style consumerism, boosting car ownership, paper use, and Big Mac consumption rates toward
    the untenable levels found in the United States-with grave potential consequences for the health of the natural world, the
    stability of the earth‘s climate, and the security of food supplies.




                                                                                                                                      87
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                       TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                 Impact: Shift Threatens Local Environments and Worker Safety

TRANSFER OF WASTES FROM THE PRODUCTION PROCESS CREATES ITS OWN NEW SET OF RISKS
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 123
Seen more broadly, the traffic in risk, particularly the transfer of hazards from developed to developing nations, involves more than
simply the export of toxic wastes. The entire capitalist commodity system is infused with risk. At all points of production, circulation
and consumption there are hazards for human beings which have a variety of sources, ranging from the production and use of
dangerous substances, hazardous forms of packaging and distribution, and finally, the risks which attach to the consumption and
frequently despoiled or faulty commodities.
Within this ‗continuum‘ of risk there are, however, two areas of extreme potential hazard which emerge from separate ‗moments‘ of
the production process. First, the process of production itself can pose a risk to workers and surrounding communities, perhaps best
exemplified in the examples of a nuclear power station or a chemicals plant. Even a minor technological malfunction or process
mishap can have grave consequences both for humans and the environment in their proximity. Second, there are the risks which
emerge ―downstream‖ in the production process, in the form of residuals which may threaten human and environmental wellbeing.
These toxic wastes may accumulate at the point of production or, as is generally required in developed countries, they may be
removed to some other site for further processing, storage or disposal. This is not to mention the enormous quantities of hazardous
wastes which are daily illegally disposed of, frequently dumped in public domains, such as waterways, landfills, sewerage and
drainage systems, and in the countryside. The transfer of such toxic residuals from the point of production has thus generated an
entire set of hazardous land uses, including waste transport systems, storage warehouses, landfills and incinerators.

SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LOWER
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 123-4
The attraction for firms of the developed world is the chance to expand t heir aggregate output (and thus profit) by operating
autonomous plants within national settings characterized by low production costs and large, growing markets. It must be noted that
foreign operated plants are often built to higher safety standards than locally owned equivalents, as Hazarika (1987:22) observes, the
worst environmental offenders in developing countries tend to be ―government factories, local private industry and illegal
manufacturing units‘, rather than the plants operated by TNCs. Nonetheless, it is a fact that western TNCs frequently operate
industrial facilities in developing countries which are characterized by lower safety standards than those achieved at their own
equivalent plants in the developed world. At least some of these conditions were apparent in the production undertaken by Union
Carbide at its pesticides factory in Bhopal, India between 1969 and 1984.

MNCS THREATEN LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS
Robert Gilpin, Professor of politics and international affairs, Princeton University, 2000, The challenge of global capitalism: the
world economy in the 21st century, p. 176-7
Despite the generally positive attitude of host countries toward FDI, governments are right to be circumspect in dealing with MNCs.
MNCs represent an enormous concentration of economic –and by implication, political – power. The strategies of these firms are an
important determinant of the location of industries and services in the international economy; they can benefit or harm an economy
and are frequently denounced as imperial powers that exploit the rest of the world for narrow corporate advantage. Environmentalists
charge often that MNCs are largely responsible for the deterioration of the natural environment. National elites continue to worry
about foreign domination of their economies, especially foreign ownership of the most rapidly growing high-tech sectors. Unless the
country possesses such bargaining chips as substantial financial and technological capabilities or control over access to a wealthy
market, it will be at a considerable disadvantage in its dealings with foreign firms.




                                                                                                                                     88
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                         TURN: SHIFT TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
                                        AT: Shift Helps Economies of Developing Countries

INDUSTRIAL SHIFT IS A FORM OF ENVIRONMENTAL BLACKMAIL OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 129
As with some poorer communities within nation states, so, internationally, risk-producing capital often uses its economic power over
impoverished nation states in a form of environmental blackmail: ―the ability of TNCs [transnational corporations] to circumvent
legislation by moving their operations to another country allows them to exploit those countries which are desperate for foreign
capital‘. Moreover, so Beck claims, in the international context, ―Suing for damages helps just as little as protesting publicly.‖ Once
a state enters into the waste trade, there is little chance of turning back: ―Regions swallow not only the poison but also its non-
attributability…For on top of everything else, the ―poison-swallowing regions‖ are under compulsion to hush it up.‖ In the era of the
risk society, waste, with its rising exchange value, and waste facilities with their capacity to generate big profits, now appear as
sources of economic ―development‖ which poorer states compete for within secondary or marginal investment circuits.




                                                                                                                                     89
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                               TURN: PATERNALISM Front Line

A. MINORITY COMMUNITIES WANT THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY JOBS
Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas & Chair of Department of
Economics University of Central Arkansas, 2000, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 24 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 67, p. 85
  [*86] The fact that poor and black people are attracted to the higher paying jobs in the petroleum industry is very strong evidence
that they regard the package of slightly dirtier air and higher wages as preferable to the slightly cleaner air and lower wages back
where they came from. Nothing could more dramatically indicate that in the eyes of ostensible "victims" of environmental racism, this
was a good thing. In effect the blacks are saying, "if this is environmental racism, we want more of it."

B. DENYING MINORITIES THE CHOICE TO BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS WITH ECONOMIC BENEFITS
DENIES AUTONOMY
Richard J. Lazarus, Professor of Law, Washington University, 1992, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 NW. U.L. Rev.
787, p. footnotes
  Of course, these same factors can be turned somewhat on their head to argue against redistributive efforts in environmental
protection. For instance, one could contend that the unilateral reduction of environmental risks in minority communities would be a
source of racial injustice, by denying members of those communities the autonomy to choose for themselves between economic return
and environmental risk. The members of the community might have preferred the benefits associated with economic development.
Indeed, there are recent instances where industry has sought to "compensate" residents directly for the increased risks through advance
monetary payments. See Ronald Smothers, Future in Mind, Choctaws Reject Plan for Landfill, N.Y. Times, Apr. 21, 1991, at A13.

C. PATERNALISM FROM ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM SOLUTIONS RISKS TYRANNY
Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas & Chair of Department of
Economics University of Central Arkansas, 2000, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 24 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 67, p. 87
  Perhaps the most serious objection of all to paternalism, at least from the point of view of its adherents, is that this doctrine is
logically incompatible with our democratic institutions. And this applies to all paternalism, whether concerned with child labor,
minimum wages, maximum hours, savings or, in the present case, "environmental racism." If there are people so stupid, so childlike,
so unsophisticated, so unworldly, so simple-minded, so credulous, so unwary, that their savings or geographical locational decisions
cannot be relied upon, then why and how can they be entrusted with the vote? Why should we not, according to this very mischievous
argument, take away the suffrage from all blacks, all poor people, and all those whose savings rate is not to the liking of our rulers?
Needless to say, down this path lies totalitarianism and fascism. All men of good will, of necessity, would have to pull back from this
logical abyss with horror. But then the same may be said of the "environmental racism" which is an integral part of this perspective.




                                                                                                                                    90
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                    TURN: PATERNALISM
                             Polluting Industries Bring Economic Benefits to Minority Communities

FACILITIES SITING BRING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES
Jill E. Evans, Associate Professor of Law, Samford University, Winter 1998, Arizona Law Review, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 1219, p. 1259
   A clear example of the impact of economic incentives is found in the Emelle incinerator operated by Chemical Waste Management
("CWM"). The Emelle facility in Sumter County, Alabama is the nation's largest hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facility. n198 Sumter County is rural and poor, nearly 70% of the population is black, n199 and 90% of the black residents lived in
poverty at the time of siting. n200 According to WMX Technologies, of which CWM is a subsidiary, the Emelle facility has brought
substantial revenues into a county which, at 14.4%, had one of the state's highest infant mortality rates. n201 Since the siting of the
Emelle facility, the infant mortality rate dropped to 8.5%, lower than the state infant mortality rate of 11%. n202 Emelle employs 300
people on an annual payroll of $10 million, with 60% of the employees living in Sumter County. n203 The revenue brought in by the
landfill, in addition to providing employment, has been used to improve schools, build the local fire station and town hall, as well as
improve health care delivery. n204




                                                                                                                                    91
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                  TURN: PATERNALISM
                             Minorities Move Near Polluting Industries for Economic Benefits p. 1/2

MINORITY COMMUNITIES WEIGH ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF LIVING NEAR SITES AS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN ENVIRONMENTL CONCERNS
Alice Kaswan, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, March, 2003, North Carolina Law Review, 81
N.C.L. Rev. 1031, p. 1136-7
  Professor Blais argues that poor or minority residents may choose to live close to environmentally sensitive land uses due to the job
opportunities and other benefits such uses provide. n480 By way of example, she describes how industrial development in Richmond,
California, attracted residents during the last century. n481 In the 1940s, war-based production, in particular, attracted southern
African-Americans seeking employment. n482 Although the Richmond example has been used by environmental justice advocates
"to provide evidence of the injustice of the existing distribution of [*1137] environmentally sensitive land uses," n483 Professor Blais
concludes that "the fact that most of its residents are minorities appears to be directly attributable to individual choices to seek
employment in a highly industrialized area." n484

MINORITY COMMUNITIES WANT FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS IN THEIR TOWN – ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas & Chair of Department of
Economics University of Central Arkansas, 2000, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 24 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 67, p. 84-5
  We have seen above that, according to an NAACP poll in Louisiana, seventy-three percent of the black residents favored a new oil
industry plant in their town. n103 Some people may object and argue that there are falsehoods in polls. Similarly, the views of black
politicians welcoming Shintech may also be disparaged by left wing environmentalists n104 within the EPA noting that elected
officials are chosen on the basis of many criteria. Therefore, their views on any one issue such as siting a plant may not be
representative of those of their constituents. n105 [*85] But there is one indication of black acceptance of the "environmental racism"
of plant location in their areas which cannot so easily be dismissed: "voting with one's feet."

MINORITY COMMUNITIES OFTEN WANT THE FACILITIES FOR THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Jill E. Evans, Associate Professor of Law, Samford University, Winter 1998, Arizona Law Review, 40 Ariz. L. Rev. 1219, p. 1258-
9
   Economic critics of the "environmental racism" theory also argue that there are trade-offs at play in mitigating siting disputes and
point out that minority communities have in many instances supported siting toxic facilities in their communities. n192 The
possibility of jobs and other perceived economic benefits induce city leaders in poorer communities suffering from "rising
unemployment, extreme poverty, a shrinking tax base, and a decaying business infrastructure" n193 not only to welcome, but to
actively encourage, the location of a toxic facility in their community. n194 These communities become ripe for exploitation by
polluting industries anxious to avoid a NIMBY-triggered protest. Economic incentives and monetary inducements pave the way for
unopposed facility siting n196 because, as one commentator asserted, if many low income communities are to lift themselves out of
poverty, they must support the construction of job creating projects... Recycling plants, sewage treatment plants, sewage sludge
treatment units,...any many others are, ironically, environmentally both necessary and controversial. It is past time to abandon the
reflexive notion that every major construction is an evil that must be fought. n197

MINORITIES MOVE TOWARD THE LAND USES FOR THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Alice Kaswan, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, March, 2003, North Carolina Law Review, 81
N.C.L. Rev. 1031, p. 1141
  It is, however, possible that increasing concentrations of poor and minorities near new LULUs are a consequence of their movement
toward the land uses. n504 That mobility may reflect their preferences for the land uses, and therefore lead to a greater satisfaction of
distributive justice under the community preferences model. On the other hand, to the extent the LULU siting reduced property values,
the mobility may reflect the desirability of cheaper housing or job opportunities, not a preference for the new land uses. The move
may be made in spite of the land use.




                                                                                                                                      92
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                  TURN: PATERNALISM
                             Minorities Move Near Polluting Industries for Economic Benefits p. 2/2

MINORITIES CHOOSE TO MOVE TOWARD LULU‘s – CHEAPER HOUSING AND JOBS
Alice Kaswan, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, March, 2003, North Carolina Law Review, 81
N.C.L. Rev. 1031, p. 1141-2
  Nonetheless, residents who choose to move to LULUs for the cheaper housing or jobs are receiving a net gain in having their
preferences met from their preexisting circumstances; otherwise, one would presume that they would not have made the move. In that
sense, then, this form of mobility could be seen as serving the [*1142] community preferences model. n505 To the extent the model
goes farther to assert that residents actually desire the land uses around them, however, then mobility prompted by cheaper housing or
jobs, rather than by the undesirable land use, would not satisfy the model. However one views it, such mobility is not likely to operate
equally. The cheaper housing or jobs are likely to be particularly desirable for minorities and the poor, who may have a more difficult
time finding affordable housing or jobs than those with higher incomes who are not subject to discrimination. n506




                                                                                                                                     93
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                  TURN: PATERNALISM
                           Environmental Justice Discourse Characterizes Communities as ―Victims‖

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TREATS COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUALS AS ―VICTIMS‖
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 1-2
As the nature of risks and harms changes with the transformation in science and technology and the social and economic polarizations
both within and across societies influencing a new understanding and redefinition of problems, for example, the calls for justice are
also being framed in new ways. Environmental justice is one such area where the focus is now on the distribution of environmental
quality; a focus on harms caused and aggravated by anthropogenic environmental bads and well being protected and enhanced by
environmental goods. Here, justice s demanded by or on behalf of ―environmental victims.‖ Environmental victims are ―those who
are harmed by natural processes, by antrhopegenic processes mediated by the natural environment, and by restrictions in access to the
environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM DISCOURSE ESSENTIALIZES ―VICTIMIZED‖ COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 9-10
In addition, the usual perspectives on environmental racism tend to label and want to see a victimized community as a homogenous
and united group of people. However, the land-use debate surround the PFS facility has intensified already existing frictions in the
community, tribal leaders and other tribal members have disparate views about the risks and benefits of the PFS facility and this has
played out controversially within the environmental justice community at a national scale. The standard perspectives of
environmental justice within that community do little to shed light on the complexity of this case. Rather, responses from that
community tend to perpetuate an oversimplified dichotomy composed solely of intentional or personal racism on one hand and on the
other hand all the victimized people of color. As the situation is complicated by the emergence of disparate views within the tribal
community, the dilemma is ―solved‖ by depicting those Indians who espouse accepted environmental justice views as traditionalists
who have the sole legitimate right to act on behalf of that community.




                                                                                                                                  94
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                 TURN: PATERNALISM
                 Unjust/Racist to Not Let Communities Weigh Environmental Risks Against Economic Benefits

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES WHO DENY MINORITIES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT POLLUTION FOR
ITS ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES ARE RACIST AND PATERNALISTIC
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 2
American Indian lawyers, Kevin Gover and Jana L. Walker have specifically addressed what they see as the paternalism and racism
inherent in the arguments of some environmental activists:
Too often, the environmental community appoints itself the officious protector of the Indians…To people like ourselves, Indians who
have devoted our careers to the defense of Indian rights, this is unspeakably arrogant…Much of the environmental community seems
to assume that if an Indian community decides to accept such a project, it either does not understand the potential consequences or has
been bamboozled by an unprincipled waste company. In either case, the clear implication is that Indians lack the intelligence to
balance and protect adequately their own economic and environmental interests. This is clearly a racist assumption; the same
assumption that guided the federal policies that nearly eradicated Indian people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
A few scholars such as American Indian law expert Dean Suagee harshly criticize some environmental justice advocates for not
understanding the sovereign status of tribes. Other scholars have discussed the significant, yet complicated, implications of tribal
sovereignty as demonstrated in the power dynamics between tribal, federal, and state governments and have explored conflicts
between environmental justice advocacy and tribal governments‘ abilities to act as sovereigns. Without acknowledging the
intersection of tribal sovereignty and environmental justice in the context of historical colonialism, environmental justice scholars fail
to address the issue of community self-determination and this can lead to tense relationships between struggling tribes and
environmental justice advocates.

BELIEF THAT THE AFF KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IS PATERNALIST
Roy Whitehead & Walter Block, Associate Professor of Business Law, University of Central Arkansas & Chair of Department of
Economics University of Central Arkansas, 2000, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 24 Wm. & Mary
Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 67, p. 87
  However, these arguments are not good enough for the EPA and others who complain about "environmental racism." For not only
are they left wing environmentalists, they are paternalists as well--a poisonous combination.
  What is paternalism? It is the view that the elites n109 know better what benefits the people (particularly the poor and blacks) than
do they themselves. Since the elites know better, they also adopt the right to impose their vision on these people "for their own good."
Nowhere is this mind set more clearly articulated than in the debate now raging over social security. n110 The underlying premise of
this program is that the people have too high a rate of time preference (or are too stupid) to be able to save for their old age. Therefore,
the government is justified in forcing them to do "in their own interest" what they (perversely) do not now believe to be in their own
interest. n111




                                                                                                                                         95
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                     TURN: COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT : Front Line

AFFIRMATIVE SOLUTION IS MERELY WINDOW DRESSING – NO REAL SOLUTION WITHOUT FOCUSING ON
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 233-4
  In its quest for social justice, the environmental justice movement must overcome the same fundamental obstacle faced by the Civil
Rights Movement: powerlessness of poor and minority communities, both economic and political. n15 This powerlessness is the
underlying cause of environmental injustice, manifesting itself in (1) the [*234] disproportionate siting of undesirable land uses n16
in poor and minority communities, n17 and (2) the inequitable enforcement of environmental laws in these communities. n18 As
such, two "superficial" goals of the environmental justice movement are cleaning up existing hazardous sites and preventing similar
sites from developing in the future. However, neither goal can ultimately and satisfactorily be accomplished without first remedying
the underlying cause. For an environmental justice strategy to succeed, it must address and remedy the powerlessness that created the
problem; anything less will be mere window dressing.




                                                                                                                                   96
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                           TURN: COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
                                    No Solvency Without Focus on Community Empowerment

The aff‘s claim that reducing the exposure of minority communities to the hazards of coal-fired plants will produce justice is
ludicrous. Roberts 98 explains that this type of solution is mere window dressing. The only way to achieve environmental
justice is to increase community empowerment, which this plan ignores.

More evidence—

EMPOWERMENT CRITICAL TO ATTACK ROOT CAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. xvii-
xviii
Second, I make clear that the environmental struggle of the marginalized are very much about power. Only through gaining more
power to change their conditions can oppressed people live in dignity and work toward social equality. This necessarily implies
conflict through challenging dominant orders and practices since power is never given, but rather taken.

MUST EMPOWER COMMUNITIES TO SOLVE
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 113
Heiman (1996: 119) further elaborates the environmental justice ideal as centering on ‗community empowerment and access to the
resources necessary for an active role in decisions affecting people‘s lives‘. In Chapter 3 we saw that ‗need‘ has been defined in just
this way. The idea of empowerment derives from its moral force ultimately from the Kantian idea of the person, and therefore the
right to autonomy, which infuses conceptions of rights and needs and the virtue of citizenship.




                                                                                                                                      97
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                           TURN: COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
                                    Should Shift Focus to Community Empowerment Strategies

NEED COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ROOT CAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
INJUSTICE
Gregory Roberts, Editor, American University Law Review, October, 1998, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 229, p. 255-6
Community empowerment strategies are necessary because they are the only means to adequately address and remedy the underlying
cause of environmental injustice - powerlessness. To be effective, however, these strategies must seek to accomplish three goals:
improving education; building the movement; and addressing the root-cause of the problem. n143 The first objective focuses on two
types of education: educating the community about a proposed land use; n144 [*256] and educating the community that it must take
power for itself. n145 The second objective mandates the creation of an active community group that will remain intact and active
long after the problem at issue is resolved. n146 Finally, the third objective demands an effective strategy that will address the root-
cause of environmental injustice and not merely a symptom of the problem. n147
  In short, community empowerment strategies seek to enable those who face the consequences of environmental decisions be the
ones making the decisions. n148 By educating and mobilizing communities, these strategies attempt to remedy the inequitable results
generated by NIMBY and the normal functioning of the public choice process. n149 The ultimate goal of community empowerment
strategies is to create numerous empowered communities that will coalesce into a movement capable of exerting pressure on and
affecting the personal agendas of key decision-makers. n150

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE QUESTIONS SHOULD MOVE BEYOND IDENTIFYING AFFECTED COMMUNITIES –
INSTEAD FOCUS ON EMPOWERING THEM TO SEEK FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES
Ryan Holifield, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, 2001, ―Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental
Racism‖, Urban Geography, http://www.bellpub.com/ug/2001/ad010105.pdf. p. 84-5
The institutionalization of environmental justice in federal policy should lead researchers using quantitative approaches to think
carefully about the relevance of their research questions. Testing claims of inequity on a national scale was arguably pertinent to the
debate over whether the United States needed to address the distribution of pollution and waste sites at the federal level. But now that
federal agencies have established policies, built bureaucracies, and earmarked funds devoted to environmental justice, traditional
―environmental equity‖ analyses may no longer be appropriate. Instead of asking whether patterns of disproportionate exposure to
environmental risks exist, federal agencies in the United States now typically ask which communities face higher risks. Within this
institutional discourse, to ask whether environmental injustice exists now means to ask, in effect, ―Are disproportionately burdened
minority and low-income communities receiving appropriate attention and resources?‖ Instead of continuing to analyze distributions
of EPA-regulated facilities at the state or national scale, we should apply our skills to helping empower these ―environmental justice
communities‖ to develop and analyze their own neighborhood environmental inventories.

MUST EMPOWER LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO ATTACK ROOT CAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM
Gerald Torres, Head Professor of Real Property Law, University of Texas Law School, 1996, The Journal of Law and Commerce,
15 J.L. & Com. 597, p. 605-6
    Luke Cole has written a number of articles on environmental justice that focus on the relative political powerlessness of the
communities who are resisting one type of environmental imposition or another. His essays are derived largely from the cases he has
litigated and his strategies for assisting community groups. n19 His experience in litigating [*606] the El Pueblo para el Aire y Agua
Limpio v. County of Kings, n20 a waste disposal siting case, led him to the conclusion that the technique of control used by the
County Board of Supervisors was to politically exclude opponents of the siting decision. In that case he used a straight due process
attack on the procedures used to reach the decision. The "mal-distribution of environmental burdens," as he terms it, flows from the
lack of political power and he has chosen a strategy that focuses on that problem. In his view, efforts to strengthen the political
position of the communities subject to environmental burdens is the correct strategy because the racial discrimination approach is
fraught with too many procedural and substantive difficulties to prove valuable in the development of doctrine in this area. Moreover,
he believes that it is probably not the focus that is going to achieve the broadest amount of environmental help for communities at risk.




                                                                                                                                      98
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF Front Line

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE VICTORIES UNDERMINE SUSTAINABILITY
Kent E. Portney, Associate Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department, Tufts University, 1994, Fordham
Urban Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 827, p. 835
   If, in the absence of available disposal or recycling facilities, the alternative is for corporations to engage in the illegal disposal of
materials, then clearly the environment has suffered. In this case the impact on the environment of the environmental justice
movement would arguable be negative. On the other hand, if the producers of hazardous wastes find alternatives to producing these
wastes, then there might be a net gain for the environment. In working to prevent siting of hazardous waste disposal facilities proposed
for minority communities, the environmental justice movement may actually be contributing to greater environmental sustainability.
Again, the point is that whether and to what degree this is the case depends largely on the type of facility, the kind of net improvement
that facility promises to make compared to its alternatives, and how industries respond when they cannot rely on new disposal or
treatment facilities.




                                                                                                                                         99
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                        TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF
                                              EJ Victories Undermine Sustainability

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT‘S SUCCESS AGAINST SITINGS HAVE UNDERMINED SUSTAINABILITY
GOALS
Kent E. Portney, Associate Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department, Tufts University, 1994, Fordham Urban
Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 827, p. 833-4
   The fact is that "successful siting," or situations where a landfill, waste treatment facility or incinerator, etc. are actually built, have
become extremely rare in any kind of community or neighborhood. If there once was a bias to siting, the fact that so few facilities
have been sited in recent years suggests that such a bias has been diminished. n18 This may well be attributable to the efforts of those
involved in the environmental justice movement. But what about the effect of the inability to site facilities on " sustainability?" Has
the environmental justice movement's success in restricting the siting of facilities, combined with a general rise in opposition to such
facilities, made sustainability a more elusive goal? Answers to these questions are difficult to determine not only because there is a
very real lack of empirical research on the subject, but also because the answers likely depend on which of the three definitions of
sustainability one uses and what kind of facility is at issue. Preventing facility siting may well affect sustainable economic
development differently than environmental sustainability or the creation of sustainable communities. The possible impact on each of
these three types of sustainability needs to be distinguished. Table 1 provides a summary of the probable effect of siting prevention
on each type of sustainability.
   Under the definition of sustainability as sustainable economic development, the impact of the environmental justice movement's
successful opposition to siting facilities is probably the most direct and at least on the surface, the most negative. In other words, the
clearest case can be made for the argument that the environmental justice movement has impeded sustainable economic
development. When construction of new facilities is blocked, almost regardless of the type of facility, the appearance is that economic
development is restrained. Yet, this does not address the issue of how "sustainable development" per se is affected.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SUCCESS UNDERMINES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Kent E. Portney, Associate Professor and Chairman of the Political Science Department, Tufts University, 1994, Fordham
Urban Law Journal, 21 Fordham Urb. L.J. 827, p. 834
  To many, the contribution of new facilities and their siting to economic development is simply a matter of economic efficiency. In
short, siting new waste disposal and treatment facilities is seen as a key component to sustaining economic development. The impact
of doing nothing on economic sustainability would be devastating. To the extent that industries face the prospect of increased costs
associated with finding new, less-polluting, manufacturing technologies, doing nothing may create additional pressure to move
production (and jobs) out of the country. Since, at least in the near future, the consequence of the environmental justice movement's
opposition to siting facilities is to, at best, maintain the status quo with respect to economic development, its impact on achieving
sustainable development is negative.




                                                                                                                                          100
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                    TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF
                          Goals of Environmental Justice and Sustainability Fundamentally in Conflict

PRIORITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENT
J. B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, 1999, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum,
Spring, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 161, p. 180-1
Ironically, sustainable development's environment-economy-equity policy triad is also the source of competition between sustainable
development and environmental justice. In the sustainable development framework, equity is co-equal with environment and
economy. In the environmental justice framework, equity is placed above all else. Sustainable development is a multi-trait, long-term
policy optimizer, whereas environmental justice is a single-trait, short-term policy maximizer. The resemblance between their
relationship and the relationship of mainstream environmentalism and Deep Ecology suggests that a similar dance of competition and
conflict will eventually unfold.
  The numerous ongoing efforts to develop sets of "indicators" of sustainable development illustrate the multi-trait optimizing
orientation of sustainable development. For example, the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators
(SDI Group), a multi-agency policy development group formed at the recommendation of the PCSD, n77 recently issued what it calls
an "experimental" set of indicators of sustainable development which it believes "reflects the multidisciplinary and intergenerational
nature [*181] of sustainable development." n78 The SDI Group divides the 40 indicators it developed into three categories:
economic, environmental, and social. n79 All of the indicators in each category are macroscopic in focus: births to single mothers,
population below poverty levels, income distribution, unemployment, and so on. None of the SDI Group's indicators directly asks the
question whether environmental justice is present at acceptable levels. There is no single indicator devoted specifically to measuring
environmental justice. Nowhere does the SDI Group reject environmental justice as a policy, and nothing in its set of indicators
necessarily works contrary to environmental justice; rather, environmental justice simply is not present as a discrete policy goal.
   By contrast, environmental justice increasingly defines itself according to a far narrower set of indicators than does sustainable
development. Little is heard from environmental justice advocates today about the sweeping, all-inclusive agenda statements of the
early 1990s. Rather, environmental justice studies focus repeatedly on multivariate statistical analyses of localized demographic
indicators involving race, income, exposure to toxics, and receipt of environmental protection resources. n80 Most current
environmental justice policy analyses identify demographic imbalances in environmental quality and protection that operate on
relatively small scales of study, and as such are subject to almost endless debate over study method. n81 For example, one of the
recurring debates in environmental justice dialogue is whether zip code or census tracts provide the better study unit for
environmental justice measurements. n82 And the already narrow demographic approach increasingly has become more microscopic
in focus. For example, EPA has adopted a site-specific demographic statistics approach for its use in determining whether individual
state or local environmental permit decisions have disproportionate impacts on racial minority populations. n83 The focus of
environmental justice thus is increasingly on site-specific analyses of a narrow set of demographic indicators, with race as the
overarching theme of study and description. n84

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONTRADICTORY GOALS
J. B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, 1999, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum,
Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 161, p. 181
  Thus it is apparent that none of the indicators being forged for sustainable development has anything meaningful to say about
environmental justice as environmental justice advocates define it, and that none of the indicators being forged for environmental
justice has anything meaningful to say about sustainable development as sustainable development advocates define it. There is no
measure in the SDI Group's work that bears resemblance to the site-specific, race-based demographic indicators environmental justice
advocates use, and hence we will not know if environmental justice improves as sustainable development indicators show progress in
sustainable development. On the other hand, when environmental justice is not maximized demographically in a given location,
environmental justice policy advocates offer no clue as to whether that condition is acceptable given non-equity considerations
associated with environment and economy. We cannot tell from their indicators when, if ever, some environmental racial inequity is
not unjust because sustainability of environment or economy requires or justifies it. The two policies, at one time cooperating to gain
momentum and legitimacy, appear to have parted ways in terms of how they present themselves to the outside world.




                                                                                                                                  101
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                   TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF
                        Environmental Justice Movement Not Interested in Environmental Sustainability

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 12
Here, environmental issues are usually taken as single issue problems and relatively seen in isolation from their broader social milieus.
The claims about the linkages between poverty and environmental degradation not only shift the focus but also complicate issues of
justice. Such claims are repeatedly made in the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987) for example, that ‗poverty itself pollutes the
environment, creating environmental stress in a different way. Those who are poor and hungry will often destroy their immediate
environment in order to survive‖ and that ―It is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective
that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality‖. To what extent poverty ―pollutes‖ the
environment and why so, is an open question. But in the context of justice claims it is not only this question but also who pollutes
whose environment that matter equally if not more. These issues while themselves reflective of distinct understandings of the
environment and their social and political discourses, have been influential in shaping the agendas of many sustainable development
movements with strong social justice character around the world. In the United States the ―environmental justice‖ movement can be
seen as a similar social justice movement which is not exclusively concerned with conservation and preservation causes that otherwise
make up the agendas of so many other influential Northern sustainability groups. The apparent absence of a strong conservation
element in such justice movements is at the heart of the growing suspicion that the agendas of social justice and sustainability may not
be the same.

CLASHES BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCREASE
J. B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, 1999, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum,
Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 161, p. 184
  The Michigan steel mill case is unlikely to remain the sole example for long. n90 The potential for conflict between sustainable
development and environmental justice increases as the latter demands site-specific outcomes that do not comport with the local,
regional, and national goals of sustainable development. As environmental justice becomes more intransigent in its strategy, as is
likely in the face of a strengthening sustainable development movement, it will lead to increasing numbers of clashes between the two.
n91 Gradually, what were once mutually compatible policy approaches will grow distant, and it is unlikely that sustainable
development advocates have an unlimited supply of cooperation strategies available for dealing with environmental justice's
intractable demands. Conflict is inevitable. Although environmental justice may win some battles along the way, if it wages all out
war against sustainable development, it is unlikely to win in the long run. n92

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NOT COMPATIBLE
J. B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, 1999, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum,
Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 161, p. 184-5
Sustainable development and environmental justice are locked in a co-evolutionary relationship, coupled by their mutual focus on
social equity. However, they are not entirely compatible in that focus. Sustainable development includes equity as a co-equal partner
in the policy triad of environment, economy, and equity, concerning itself with optimizing the balance of those three goals over time
across large and small geographic scales. Environmental justice uses equity as the theme for a narrow, single-minded focus on
eliminating disproportionate impacts of environmental degradation on racial minorities at site-specific levels. While there is room for
cooperation between those two systems of environmental policy, there is also the likelihood of competition and conflict.
  If the history of mainstream environmentalism and Deep Ecology is any indication, and it may not be, over time sustainable
development and environmental justice will find less in common. But they will always be coupled in a co-evolutionary dance. The
bottom line for sustainable development is that, while it will become the dominant force in national and international environmental
policy, it will always have to deal with the narrow, locally-entrenched form of environmental justice. The bottom line for
environmental justice is that so long as it contends that racially disproportionate local impact is never acceptable regardless of
economic and environmental sustainability indicators, it will play an opposition role in the environmental policy of the future. If
environmental justice advocates want more than that, they are likely to be as disappointed and marginalized as today's Deep Ecology
devotees; however, if they are content with having a seat at the table of sustainable development, though with no power of veto, they
will continue to have a meaningful role in the co-evolutionary play of environmental policy.




                                                                                                                                    102
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                      TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF
                                   Distributive Justice Incompatible with Goals of Sustainability

INHERENT CONFLICT BETWEEN DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 8-9
Inside the distributive perspectives of justice the question ―what is to be distributed?‖ cannot be seen in separation from ―what is to be
sustained?‖. Within the politics of environment, claims of distributive justice often are bound to come face to face with claims of
sustainability. This seems unavoidable because of the fact that the very concept of sustainable development, or even sustainability,
has an important normative feature and unless one talks about this feature, the concept does not make much sense unless one wants to
reduce the whole notion to pure technical matters. Such an encounter seems inevitable as concern for environment becomes a major, if
not the most important, driving force and arena of power politics, struggles and conflicts. While to some quarters it is increasingly
becoming clear that it is no longer rational and desirable to talk of development, progress, resource use, security, and stability, in
short, environmental sustainability, without talking about equity and social justice, to others such as the narrow techno-managerialist
and purely economistic perspectives equity and justice appear to be less important issues and best and non-issues at worst.




                                                                                                                                     103
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                  TURN: SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT TRADEOFF
                         Environmental Sustainability Movement Ignore Environmental Justice Claims

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE EMPHASIS ON SOCIAL EQUITY INCONSISTENT WITH SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 147, p. 150
  In his article, Professor Ruhl argues that the theories of environmental justice and sustainable development will come into conflict
because of the environmental justice movement's primary focus on the issue of social equity. While sustainable development's broad
policy goals embrace a wide, diffuse set of social constituencies, the environmental justice movement speaks to a constituency
marginalized by race and class. Professor Ruhl concludes that sustainable development policies will weakly incorporate goals of
community participation, but in doing so, will weaken the radical values of community participation encouraged by the environmental
justice movement.

DIFFICULT TO RAISE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 147, p. 150
  Again, Mr. Micheal McCloskey and Professor J. B. Ruhl offer us a broad overview of this question. In his essay, Mr. McCloskey
concludes that the basic definition of sustainability contained in the Brundtland Report has no real core, and so offers little hope for
communities seeking to use sustainable development principles in environmental decision-making. Mr. McCloskey further argues that
since social equity plays a minor role in the Brundtland Report's affirmation of sustainable development, community concerns about
the distribution of negative environmental externalities will be difficult to raise within the sustainable development context.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SUSTAINABILITY
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum, Spring, 1999, 9 Duke Env L & Pol'y F 147, p. 148
  In our first two articles, Michael McCloskey, Chairman of the Sierra Club, and Professor J. B. Ruhl, currently a visiting professor at
the George Washington School of Law, examine whether equity concerns serve as a conceptual link between sustainable development
and environmental justice. Mr. McCloskey argues that the Brundtland Report addresses social equity as a separate goal, divorced
from the definition of sustainable development. Mr. McCloskey notes that neither the Brundtland Report's vague allusions to
intergenerational equity, or its basic definition of sustainable development address equity issues meaningfully.




                                                                                                                                    104
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                          TURN: SPECIEISM

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS SPECIEST – ONLY CONCERNED WITH HUMAN TO HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS,
IGNORES OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE REST OF THE NATURAL WORLD – SOCIAL ECOLOGY ONLY
SOLUTION
Asghar Ali, University of East Angola, 2001, CSERGE Working Paper, ―A conceptual framework for environmental justice based
on shared but differentiated responsibilities‖, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/edm_2001_02.pdf. p. 2
Justice as concerned with the interaction and relationship of human beings with each other, as a social concept, is still, correctly so, the
primary focus of attention and study for many theorists and activists. But now there is a realization of another relational aspect to the
struggle for justice; that of our relationship as species – as human beings – to the rest of the natural world. Low and Gleeson (1998)
term the first as ―environmental justice‖ and the latter as ―ecological justice‖ but point out that ―They are really two aspects of the
same relationship‖ (p. 2). In this paper, following this distinction, which also stresses the significant interrelated and interdependent
nature of the two aspects of justice, I will mainly focus on ―environmental justice‖; justice as concerned with human-human
relationships. I accept that stressing this kind of dichotomy too much and too far can be misleading and may even be unnecessary.
This is because eventually all environmental and ecological problems have their roots in social problems as also suggested by a ‗social
ecology‘ perspective that rejects a dualistic thinking whereby nature and society are often seen as antagonistic towards each other.
Thus, ―The divisions between society and nature have their deepest roots in divisions within the social realm, namely deep-seated
conflicts between human and human that are often obscured by our broad use of ―humanity.‖ The injuries done to the non-human
world has a close relationship to the injustices in the human world. An ecological sensibility of developing out of such understanding
and based on a dialectical view of self, history, nature and society that enriches and broadens thought and action does not see aspects
of a phenomenon exclusively and in isolation from other phenomenon.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOCUSES ON HUMANS – IGNORES NON-HUMAN COMPONENTS OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 102
Making the environment ‗human‘, as we shall see in Chapter 6, does not dispose of the question of ecological justice. A good
environment for humans is not necessarily the same thing as a good environment for non-human nature. Yet Marx and Engles were
referring to the evil of humanly created environments which were in every sense inhumane: the filth, squalor and overcrowding of the
poor neighborhoods of industrial cities. With both humans and non-human creatures, a humane environment is one in which their
needs are met and in which they can optimally flourish.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INCONSISTENT WITH DEEP ECOLOGY
Nicholas Low and Brendan Gleeson, Senior Lecturer in Architecture- University of Melbourne & Research Fellow at the
Australian National University, 1998, Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology, p. 149
Such a conception is problematical for justice and indeed for any morality. Fox (1990) has conducted an examination of the self-
pictures of deep ecology and cites a number of writers who regard the development of ecological consciousness as superseding the
need for morality. Macy puts the matter in the simplest terms:
Sermons seldom hinder us from pursuing our self-interest, so we need to be a littler more enlightened about what our self-interest is.
It would not occur to me, for example, to exhort you to refrain from cutting off your leg. That wouldn‘t occur to me or to you,
because your leg is part of you. Well, so are the trees in the Amazon Basin; they are our external lungs. We are just beginning to
wake up to that. We are gradually discovering that we are our world. (Macy, 1987: 20).
A naïve understanding of the self as coterminous with the world might conclude that there is no need for moral discrimination and
therefore no use for the idea of justice n making such discriminations. There can only be a ―biospherical egalitarianism in which all
manifestations of nature have equal value. But of course, as we have discussed above, the inability to discriminate is politically
dangerous. Both Fox (1984) and Naess (1984), in his response to Fox, recognize this. Fox says that ―the degree of sentience (of
creatures) becomes extremely relevant in terms of how humans relate to the rest of nature if they are to resolve genuine conflicts of
value in anything other than a capricious or expedient manner‖ (1984). Naess (1984) accepts ―certain established ways of justifying
different norms dealing with different kinds of living beings.‖
In deep ecology we find both a ―realist‖ rejection of the subjectivist phenomenalism of the post-modernists and post-structuralists, and
an absorption of eastern mysticism. This aspect of ecocentric thinking has prompted Eckersley (1992) to find something like an
unbridgeasble gulf between Enlightenment thinking, in which ideas of justice are embedded (and also domination of nature), and the
ecocentrism of deep ecology.




                                                                                                                                       105
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                                   TURN: EJ ESSENTIALIZES

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT BASED ON RACIST, CULTURAL ESSENTIALIST ASSUMPTIONS
Noriko Ishiyama & Kimberly TallBear, Rutgers University, Department of Geography & International Institute for Indigenous
Resource Management, 2001, ―Changing notions of environmental justice in the decision to host a nuclear fuel storage facility on the
Skull Valley Goshute Reservation,
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Justice/ChangingNot.pdf p. 7-8
Cultural essentialism as it informs assertions by some American Indians of a more ―authentic‖ or morally pure identity and as it
informs other peoples‘ perception of ―authentic‖ Indians has been integral to the development of the environmental justice movement.
Within such movement, a highly generalized rhetoric has been used to advocate what has been described as a ―holistic tribal world-
view.‖ The environmental justice movement has built on the widespread belief within broader environmentalist circles that American
Indians were the original and perfect conservationists. The movement has applied this belief to people of color to varying degrees for
the purpose of organizing across racial lines. While an effective organizing strategy, the movement has promoted what is a
problematic generalization of culturally diverse population and has dismissed the cultural and political legitimacy of those who do not
share the stereotypical ideology by espousing a dichotomous Native American traditionalist vs. assimilationaist paradigm.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DISCOURSE ROMANTICIZES THE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES
Laura Pulido, Professor of Geography, University of Southern California, 1996, Environmentalism and Economic Justice, p. 16
While most writers are sympathetic with the subordinated in subaltern environmental struggles, a number of analysts have offered
important insights that prevent us from developing simple or Unitarian interpretations of them. Both Rangan (1993) and Pulido
(1996) have examined the romanticization of resource struggles and outlined some of the political pitfalls of this strategy. Going a
step further, Pezzoloi (1993) has demonstrated that communities engage in what appear to be environmentally related struggles at
times may not be committed to an environmental agenda. Even when they are, idealized visions of resource use may be impossible to
implement due to social divisions. Nor should we think that the success stories we hear, such as that of the Brazilian rubber-tappers,
are simply won by subaltern resistance. Melone (1993) points out that their achievements are partly due to working with mainstream
environmentalists of the First World.




                                                                                                                                  106
Harvard Debate ‗05
Environmental Justice
                                          DISCOURSE K – USE OF ―RACISM‖ GOOD

DISCOURSE K – SHOULD CALL IT ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM – NOT EQUITY OR JUSTICE
Paul M. Hendrick, Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Strategic Governance and International Initiatives, Florida
Coastal School of Law, 2001, Florida Coastal Law Journal, 2 Fl. Coastal L.J. 395, p. 395-6
  A subtle legacy of racism persists in American land use planning and environmental regulatory decisions. Calling environmental and
land use discrimination what it is--RACISM--is, arguably, a more potent consciousness-raising strategy than less feather-ruffling
theoretical visions: "environmental equity" and " environmental justice. " Land use and environmental planning, permitting, and
enforcement systems shape quality of life just as education, employment, voting, public accommodations, and transportation do. n1
  Why should the racist effects of land use and environmental permitting of hazardous facilities, businesses, and private and public
housing be irremediable if clothed in "value-neutral" language? Legal remedies lag behind discriminatory impacts of government land
use and environmental permitting as economic segregation and toxic targeting of vulnerable communities compound racial
disadvantage.
  Racial re-segregating and class-reinforcing effects of environmental/land use decisionmaking are visible across the United States.
Caucasian-Americans flee central cities. The minority poor fill affordable residential vacuums. Suburban NIMBY resistance ("not in
my back yard") to locally unwanted land uses leads to PHIBBY (put hazards in black back yards).
  Twenty-First Century racial discrimination hides, but not behind a Klan hood. It lurks in the results of decisions about where people
live, what they can afford, who attends school beside a toxic dump and who does not, where egregious hazards predominate, when
efficiency overrides human dignity, and whether government causes, marginalizes, or prevents harm. n2




                                                                                                                                  107

				
DOCUMENT INFO