Similar to my last blog post, the main point sticks— poorer communities do not have anyone to protect them. This is evident in the EPA’s suspension but also in the existence of “Cancer Valley.” Before this article, I had not heard of “Cancer Valley” and it is extremely alarming that we have allowed the air in these areas to become so toxic without offering compensation, like aid to the communities living there. We need to give more options for affordable housing that does not have an overwhelming concentration of industrial plants. This becomes increasingly important if we want to mitigate health disparities. It is both upsetting and unsettling, but not surprising that 70% of Covid-19-related deaths in Louisiana are African Americans. Poorer and minority communities continue to have disproportionately worse health outcomes than “better off” groups, with higher rates of chronic disease and premature death. It is up to the government to give these vulnerable groups heightened care, because we have historically placed them in these compromised positions, and continue to do so. Right now, maybe this means we allocate more test kits to vulnerable populations, or we ensure more hospital beds for certain demographics. But, I think something is in order. I have done a bit of research on the take-up of health care, and other public resources. Vulnerable populations are often the least likely to use public resources offered to them. We need to ask why, and act upon it. We have a responsibility to provide increased services but this comes with a responsibility and need to empower vulnerable groups to seek, use, and demand such resources.
Using something like the Covid-19 vulnerability map mentioned in this article, I wonder if we could eventually use this crisis as an instrument for air pollution. It might allow us to analyze the true impacts of pollution (and how its effects might be greater for poor communities than wealthier communities) in a unique way. Firstly, the virus is correlated with air pollution because of the health consequences of air pollution (asthma, COPD, heart disease, hypertension, etc.). Second, the virus did not systematically infect areas with higher air population. That is, the virus spread throughout communities sort of randomly. The reason we see areas with higher air pollution lighting up more in terms of death rates, is because their health is compromised by environmental factors (especially if we can control for things like income and race). Regardless of the method chosen, we need to build out our data on Covid-19 and directly put it in conversation with air pollution data. To do this effectively, we need to have all localities reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths by race, by income, by citizenship (immigrant vs. natives), etc.
Environmental Justice Might Require more than Social Efficiency
It's clear that this article presents a paradigm situation in which environmental justice concerns are relevant: you have
environmental factors that produce harmful outcomes that weigh disproportionately on marginalized groups. The questions are how should we frame what a just response would look like? What considerations are relevant? What are we truly concerned with/ what do we value?
I think an initial reaction to the EPA's move to relax enforcement of air quality regulations at this time would be to look at the MDF and MCA curves and determine what is the most socially efficient level of population and likely find that the EPA's move creates too much damage that could be avoided through cheaper abatement. This approach would likely yield a more efficient and ethical outcome. But due to our current understanding of damages and efficiency, this outcome certainly isn't guaranteed to be just.
Damages and costs are measured in dollar amounts to make comparisons commensurable which is incredibly helpful in determining economic efficiency, but let's remember how damages might theoretically be calculated. Because damages are measured in dollars, its economical to pollute lower income areas over higher income areas as this will, on balance, decrease production less. Nuclear waste storage, nuclear plants, coal mining, petrochemical plants etc are built where they are with this consideration in mind. My point being, an economically efficient outcome might actually recommend that pollution be concentrated in poor/minority communities. Environmental justice requires more than this; when the state is determining questions relating to pollution and environemtnla hazards that negatively impact individuals capabilities, I argue that the state must take justice based and normative considerations into account. The scale to which the state should do so is an entirely different question and it's one I'd like to discuss further. But to say that the state has no obligation to consider these factors is entirely inconsistent with the principles and ideals that run throughout our nations laws and moral ideals. An intersectional understanding of vulnerability is a prerequisite to meaningful engagement with the subject matter. Overlapping systems and demographic factors combine and interrelate in determining outcomes and this is at the heart of nuanced understanding of justice-based and moral obligations towards individuals, especially when dealing with environmental concerns.
Kasakove thoroughly details the inequalities faced by those in poverty during this pandemic. The quote from Gina McCarthy—President of the National Resources Defense Council—explains the multifaceted issue simply: “is not just a public health issue. It’s directly related to social equity and environmental justice challenges.” After learning about the disproportionate incidence of coronavirus among those in poverty and of color, I was curious about my own state. Metropolitan Detroit has seen an immense amount of coronavirus cases in comparison to the rest of the nation. My own county having over 4,000 cases and over 200 deaths. Wayne county, where the city is located, has over 3,500 cases and about 180 deaths.
What I found is that coronavirus has disproportionately affected blacks in Michigan. “African Americans make up 13.6% of the state’s residents but more than 40% of the more than 500 people have died as of Monday, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.” Further, they even expect the number to be higher considering 28% of the fatalities have no racial data. While whites make up 75% of the state’s population, they have made up 28% of deaths. Detroit—whose population is 80% black- has a higher mortality rate than New York City.
A cause of this issue is speculated to be the city’s water supply (and if you know the history of the Flint water crisis, this is no surprise). The city had shut off water to thousands of households because of delinquent bills over the last two years. As we know, handwashing is one of the biggest preventative measures we have against this virus, but for households that didn’t have running water, this wasn’t possible. City officials turned the water back on March 9th, but over 2,500 households still didn’t have running water for two more weeks.
Although not environmentally related, Detroit and other poor parts of Michigan are facing many of the same issues mentioned in this Vice article. Social inequalities are only heightened in the face of a crisis like this one, making change the only necessary option.
The following link (https://www.oakgov.com/covid/dashboard.html) gives a detailed dashboard of coronavirus cases in my county. It breaks it down by race, gender, age, and more. It even includes a map by area code. More black people have died in my county than any other race, though 50% of races are unaccounted for.
One of the points raised in this article that I was able to connect to our previous class discussion was through the interactive vulnerability map. In western corner of Virginia, along Appalachia, the map details that this area has a high vulnerability due to the "high amount of impoverished households, below average labor market engagement, low commercial retail availability, and low retail job density." Not mentioned in this map was the fact that the population is already at a disadvantage because of the impacts of the mining industry here. The article focuses on Louisiana and the African American population being disproportional affected by COVID-19. I would imagine that each state has some area that is disproportionally impacted. I would also imagine that each of these areas probably have higher levels of air pollution already.
Not being predisposed to unhealthy levels of pollution is a benefit awarded to individuals who are able to afford to live in these areas. This is a way to demonstrate their preferences. For lower-income families and individuals, there is not even an opportunity to demonstrate their preferences, as they are only able to afford to live in areas where the air pollution is higher. These groups of people have been impacted by high levels of air pollution for multiple years, even multiple generations. The outcomes are horrible and deserve to be talked about. Yes, this is a global pandemic. Yes, everyone is impacted - but not everyone is impacted equally.
This article reminds me a lot of what we discussed in class and what I wrote about in my last blog post. It really is sad that certain communities are affected more from pollution and therefore COVID-19. The burden is placed on those that are poor. All of this is a problem of injustice because the burdens are being disproportionately placed on those of lower socioeconomic status and in black communities.
A lot of the news recently has discussed the disproportionate weight that black communities bear in the face of COVID-19. They are more likely to catch COVID-19 and die from it. In fact, studies are showing now that it is twice as deadly for black people as it is for white people. The reason for this probably lies in a lot of the factors talked about in the Vice article because these people are generally in poorer communities and are closer to powerplants and so on that emit high levels of pollution. As we know, COVID-19 affects the respiratory system, so when people are already in poor health due to environmental pollution, it makes them more likely to die from Coronavirus.
An article I read on ABC discusses a lot of the problems that the black community faces in general in terms of health care disparities. Experts argue that COVID-19 is just shedding light on health care disparities that have been affecting the black communities for years at this point. It is sad that it has taken a global pandemic to make some people see the inequalities that we see on a daily basis in the United States.
Echoing what some of my classmates have said, it is both extremely evident and upsetting that people of poor socio-economic status, and particularly those who are Black, are facing disproportionate harms to from Covid-19. As we discussed during class on Wednesday, the virus has affected black communities at much higher rates than whites. The vice article illustrates the detrimental environmental conditions which many low SES Americans face which are both out of their control and largely contribute to poor health outcomes. The residents of cancer ally start behind others due to disproportionately high rates of poverty, along with other demographic indicators which are correlated with poorer health outcomes, such as race, and now are forced to face worse environmental conditions, putting them at greater risk for both the respiratory illness now, and other poor health outcomes in the future. This injustice comes against their will, but forces them to bear the greatest costs.
As described by a Washington Post Article on Covid's effects on African Americans, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
the Surgeon General has articulated the virus' disproportionate harms on African Americans. Health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, are found in higher rates in African Americans than amongst other demographics (likely due to more environmental conditions which unjustly put them at risk), making them more susceptible to the disease. In Doughty County, Georgia, less than an hour from my home town, the epidemic has created a hot spot. The county has a population of 90,000, recording 973 positive cases and 56 deaths as of Tuesday. For a small town in south Georgia, those are huge numbers. Black residents make up 70% of the counties population and account for 90% of its deaths. It is troubling to see these issues hit so close to home, but hopefully our nation will take these types of injustices more seriously following the crisis.
We know that there are economic models that illustrate the economic inefficiency of letting petrochemical firms push the negative costs of their pollution onto the public. Of course, economic efficiency is not what we should be concerned about here. It is truly shameful and repugnant that there is an area of this country referred to as “Cancer Alley” where it is widely known that the emissions of petrochemical plants are literally killing the residents of the communities in which they are located. How is it that we know this and it continues to exist? Why do we seem to be (as a country) okay with “Cancer Alley”? At one point, the projected deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 was between 100,000 and 200,000. We have seen (for the most part) the country come together to fight this virus, and it seems to be working. Estimates of the death toll keep getting adjusted downward. I in no way mean to belittle the impact and threat of coronavirus. But, I want to draw attention to the fact that, according to a study from the American Medical Association, air pollution leads to the death of 200,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. This burden of death is disproportionately borne by individuals of color and those of lower socioeconomic status. What if we motivated the same response to this threat as we have to coronavirus? It seems to me that if we had tributes to individuals killed by pollution in places like “Cancer Alley” and Appalachia running on major news outlets every night, like we’ve had for those lost to coronavirus, there might not be so many lives lost each year. These people’s lives matter--I don't care about the economics. Although, I feel certain, as we’ve learned in this class, the way things are operating now is NOT efficient. We don’t have to produce energy or plastics in ways that kill people in our country and around the globe. We can do things in a better way, and we have a moral duty to do so. We don’t have to let climate change destroy lives in our country or around the world either. We can do things in a better way.
AMA article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2755672?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=112019
Although the article itself is extremely alarming, there is a positive aspect in the fact that there are now many articles about environmental justice coming to the forefront of conversation. Wednesday, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, spoke out on how coronavirus is impacting marginalized groups, especially African Americans, at higher rates than other groups. He stated New York and Louisiana (especially NO) as examples and stated the same is likely occurring in Virginia, but that the data in Virginia is incomplete as 54% of people tested did not report their race and an additional 6% marked “other”. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major news outlets have also released articles on how COVID-19 is impacting those in areas with high levels of pollution at higher rates due to weaker lungs and poorer health. Most of these articles also relate the issue to poverty and minority groups especially African American and members of the Latinx community. The thing that I find interesting is that it took a pandemic to bring this literature to the forefront. Extensive literature on environmental justice existed long before the coronavirus. For example, literature by Janet Currie, some of which we have read in this class, details several environmental factors that can impact health and welfare especially in children. Other literature, from the early 2000’s details how the SARS outbreak impacted those living in poverty and those who live in polluted areas at higher rates. But despite all the literature that exists, before COVID-19 people were either ignorant or just didn’t care about the health related impacts of pollution, or how it relates to equality in that those living in poverty and/or minorities are more likely to be impacted. This is interesting because it shows people are anything but logical, which is what we often assume we are. It all goes back to the Krugman piece where industries such as the coal industry work to discredit and suppress literature due to personal interest, the public remains ignorant, and ideology and party lines keep groups/politicians from acting in society society’s best interest. The EPA rollback on emissions can be attributed to definitely, interest and ideology, and some could argue ignorance, but I personally doubt that given the amount of literature that exists, so if it is ignorance it is willful ignorance given that the agency's existence is to in fact research and protect the environment (including environmental justice issues). In the future, I hope environmental justice continues to be focused on even after the buzz due to COVID-19 ends.
There are many different social and economic angles present in their article. We have spent much of the semester discussing the negative impacts of pollution on heart and respiratory health, so it makes sense that a severe respiratory illness would hit hardest in places with high levels of air pollution. As Sydney mentioned, it is a positive thing that environmental discussion has been receiving more attention as a result of the coronavirus. Hopefully, with the government more likely to take fast action than usual, drastic changes could be made to address the environmental issues, as well as the racial and socioeconomic disparities that result from them. It is sad to see that the administration has taken the opposite approach in loosening environmental restrictions that will speed up environmental damage, exacerbate existing inequities, and increasing the death toll from COVID-19. I understand the desire to support the nation's oil industry during the pandemic, but that seems like something that would have been better addressed in the $2.2T stimulus package than in reduced environmental standards.
I recently read an interesting article in the NY Times about racial disparities in coronavirus infection rates (I believe it's the one mentioned in class on Wednesday, but I will link it below anyway). It is sad to see that during such a severe pandemic when all people should be united that there are still such significant racial and socioeconomic inequities with regards to the virus in this country. There are many factors leading to this, such as environmental pollution concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods of color, poor access to health care, and being less likely to be able to work from home. The article also goes on to mention about how false information circulating has allowed this disparity to occur. The White House has not done a great job with providing citizens with consistent and correct information about the virus, coupled with the administration's discrediting of the media, which has created an environment where false information can spread. There was an issue with fake news articles being spread around Facebook about how African Americans were immune to the virus. This was very apparent back home, as it was often on Facebook and there were drastic racial differences between who adhered to the quarantine early on and who did not. A lot of places are still segregated for the most part, and there was a big difference between which gyms, churches, etc. stayed open past being instructed to close by the governor. This circles back to Trevor Noah's point about how Trump's discrediting of the media can have dangerous consequences, and this is just one example of that coming true.
This article tied in our previous class discussion on environmental justice with certain communities facing increased exposure to air pollution. Cancer Alley is just one example of lower income communities of color experiencing greater exposure to air pollution, and suffering negative health effects from this. As it has come to national attention that minorities are experiencing higher death rates from Covid-19, this article helps to shed light on one of the many reasons for this. Individuals exposed to higher levels of air pollution are at an increased risk of developing complications from contracting Covid-19. Since minorities are exposed to air pollution at a higher rate, they are more susceptible to developing complications from Covid-19. When I looked up other articles relating to this topic, I found an interesting one on a slightly different but importantly related topic. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pke94n/cancer-alley-has-some-of-the-highest-coronavirus-death-rates-in-the-country . This article discussed how the negative economic impacts of Covid-19 will hit minorities the hardest. This is because they tend to work a greater proportion of hourly jobs already, have lower levels of wealth, and so are finding themselves currently struggling. The article also mentioned that according to data from the 2008 recession, minorities had a harder time recovering, which is likely to be a trend found if this economic turbulence reaches a recession as well. These economic impacts will only serve to further compound the health affects minorities face from air pollution induced respiratory diseases and Covid-19 because of cost related difficulties in receiving health care.
Similar to my last blog post, the main point sticks— poorer communities do not have anyone to protect them. This is evident in the EPA’s suspension but also in the existence of “Cancer Valley.” Before this article, I had not heard of “Cancer Valley” and it is extremely alarming that we have allowed the air in these areas to become so toxic without offering compensation, like aid to the communities living there. We need to give more options for affordable housing that does not have an overwhelming concentration of industrial plants. This becomes increasingly important if we want to mitigate health disparities. It is both upsetting and unsettling, but not surprising that 70% of Covid-19-related deaths in Louisiana are African Americans. Poorer and minority communities continue to have disproportionately worse health outcomes than “better off” groups, with higher rates of chronic disease and premature death. It is up to the government to give these vulnerable groups heightened care, because we have historically placed them in these compromised positions, and continue to do so. Right now, maybe this means we allocate more test kits to vulnerable populations, or we ensure more hospital beds for certain demographics. But, I think something is in order. I have done a bit of research on the take-up of health care, and other public resources. Vulnerable populations are often the least likely to use public resources offered to them. We need to ask why, and act upon it. We have a responsibility to provide increased services but this comes with a responsibility and need to empower vulnerable groups to seek, use, and demand such resources.
Using something like the Covid-19 vulnerability map mentioned in this article, I wonder if we could eventually use this crisis as an instrument for air pollution. It might allow us to analyze the true impacts of pollution (and how its effects might be greater for poor communities than wealthier communities) in a unique way. Firstly, the virus is correlated with air pollution because of the health consequences of air pollution (asthma, COPD, heart disease, hypertension, etc.). Second, the virus did not systematically infect areas with higher air population. That is, the virus spread throughout communities sort of randomly. The reason we see areas with higher air pollution lighting up more in terms of death rates, is because their health is compromised by environmental factors (especially if we can control for things like income and race). Regardless of the method chosen, we need to build out our data on Covid-19 and directly put it in conversation with air pollution data. To do this effectively, we need to have all localities reporting Covid-19 infections and deaths by race, by income, by citizenship (immigrant vs. natives), etc.
Posted by: Nikki Doherty | 04/08/2020 at 10:47 PM
Environmental Justice Might Require more than Social Efficiency
It's clear that this article presents a paradigm situation in which environmental justice concerns are relevant: you have
environmental factors that produce harmful outcomes that weigh disproportionately on marginalized groups. The questions are how should we frame what a just response would look like? What considerations are relevant? What are we truly concerned with/ what do we value?
I think an initial reaction to the EPA's move to relax enforcement of air quality regulations at this time would be to look at the MDF and MCA curves and determine what is the most socially efficient level of population and likely find that the EPA's move creates too much damage that could be avoided through cheaper abatement. This approach would likely yield a more efficient and ethical outcome. But due to our current understanding of damages and efficiency, this outcome certainly isn't guaranteed to be just.
Damages and costs are measured in dollar amounts to make comparisons commensurable which is incredibly helpful in determining economic efficiency, but let's remember how damages might theoretically be calculated. Because damages are measured in dollars, its economical to pollute lower income areas over higher income areas as this will, on balance, decrease production less. Nuclear waste storage, nuclear plants, coal mining, petrochemical plants etc are built where they are with this consideration in mind. My point being, an economically efficient outcome might actually recommend that pollution be concentrated in poor/minority communities. Environmental justice requires more than this; when the state is determining questions relating to pollution and environemtnla hazards that negatively impact individuals capabilities, I argue that the state must take justice based and normative considerations into account. The scale to which the state should do so is an entirely different question and it's one I'd like to discuss further. But to say that the state has no obligation to consider these factors is entirely inconsistent with the principles and ideals that run throughout our nations laws and moral ideals. An intersectional understanding of vulnerability is a prerequisite to meaningful engagement with the subject matter. Overlapping systems and demographic factors combine and interrelate in determining outcomes and this is at the heart of nuanced understanding of justice-based and moral obligations towards individuals, especially when dealing with environmental concerns.
Posted by: Max Gebauer | 04/09/2020 at 02:15 PM
Kasakove thoroughly details the inequalities faced by those in poverty during this pandemic. The quote from Gina McCarthy—President of the National Resources Defense Council—explains the multifaceted issue simply: “is not just a public health issue. It’s directly related to social equity and environmental justice challenges.” After learning about the disproportionate incidence of coronavirus among those in poverty and of color, I was curious about my own state. Metropolitan Detroit has seen an immense amount of coronavirus cases in comparison to the rest of the nation. My own county having over 4,000 cases and over 200 deaths. Wayne county, where the city is located, has over 3,500 cases and about 180 deaths.
What I found is that coronavirus has disproportionately affected blacks in Michigan. “African Americans make up 13.6% of the state’s residents but more than 40% of the more than 500 people have died as of Monday, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.” Further, they even expect the number to be higher considering 28% of the fatalities have no racial data. While whites make up 75% of the state’s population, they have made up 28% of deaths. Detroit—whose population is 80% black- has a higher mortality rate than New York City.
A cause of this issue is speculated to be the city’s water supply (and if you know the history of the Flint water crisis, this is no surprise). The city had shut off water to thousands of households because of delinquent bills over the last two years. As we know, handwashing is one of the biggest preventative measures we have against this virus, but for households that didn’t have running water, this wasn’t possible. City officials turned the water back on March 9th, but over 2,500 households still didn’t have running water for two more weeks.
Although not environmentally related, Detroit and other poor parts of Michigan are facing many of the same issues mentioned in this Vice article. Social inequalities are only heightened in the face of a crisis like this one, making change the only necessary option.
The following link (https://www.oakgov.com/covid/dashboard.html) gives a detailed dashboard of coronavirus cases in my county. It breaks it down by race, gender, age, and more. It even includes a map by area code. More black people have died in my county than any other race, though 50% of races are unaccounted for.
Here (https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/coronavirus-exposes-deadly-impact-of-poverty-racial-disparities-in-metro-detroit/Content?oid=24281035) is the article describing the disproportionate coronavirus incidence.
Posted by: rrirwin | 04/09/2020 at 03:21 PM
One of the points raised in this article that I was able to connect to our previous class discussion was through the interactive vulnerability map. In western corner of Virginia, along Appalachia, the map details that this area has a high vulnerability due to the "high amount of impoverished households, below average labor market engagement, low commercial retail availability, and low retail job density." Not mentioned in this map was the fact that the population is already at a disadvantage because of the impacts of the mining industry here. The article focuses on Louisiana and the African American population being disproportional affected by COVID-19. I would imagine that each state has some area that is disproportionally impacted. I would also imagine that each of these areas probably have higher levels of air pollution already.
Not being predisposed to unhealthy levels of pollution is a benefit awarded to individuals who are able to afford to live in these areas. This is a way to demonstrate their preferences. For lower-income families and individuals, there is not even an opportunity to demonstrate their preferences, as they are only able to afford to live in areas where the air pollution is higher. These groups of people have been impacted by high levels of air pollution for multiple years, even multiple generations. The outcomes are horrible and deserve to be talked about. Yes, this is a global pandemic. Yes, everyone is impacted - but not everyone is impacted equally.
Posted by: mattiegrant | 04/09/2020 at 03:53 PM
This article reminds me a lot of what we discussed in class and what I wrote about in my last blog post. It really is sad that certain communities are affected more from pollution and therefore COVID-19. The burden is placed on those that are poor. All of this is a problem of injustice because the burdens are being disproportionately placed on those of lower socioeconomic status and in black communities.
A lot of the news recently has discussed the disproportionate weight that black communities bear in the face of COVID-19. They are more likely to catch COVID-19 and die from it. In fact, studies are showing now that it is twice as deadly for black people as it is for white people. The reason for this probably lies in a lot of the factors talked about in the Vice article because these people are generally in poorer communities and are closer to powerplants and so on that emit high levels of pollution. As we know, COVID-19 affects the respiratory system, so when people are already in poor health due to environmental pollution, it makes them more likely to die from Coronavirus.
An article I read on ABC discusses a lot of the problems that the black community faces in general in terms of health care disparities. Experts argue that COVID-19 is just shedding light on health care disparities that have been affecting the black communities for years at this point. It is sad that it has taken a global pandemic to make some people see the inequalities that we see on a daily basis in the United States.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/coronavirus-disproportionately-killing-black-community-experts/story?id=70011986
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
Posted by: Margot McConnell | 04/09/2020 at 05:38 PM
Echoing what some of my classmates have said, it is both extremely evident and upsetting that people of poor socio-economic status, and particularly those who are Black, are facing disproportionate harms to from Covid-19. As we discussed during class on Wednesday, the virus has affected black communities at much higher rates than whites. The vice article illustrates the detrimental environmental conditions which many low SES Americans face which are both out of their control and largely contribute to poor health outcomes. The residents of cancer ally start behind others due to disproportionately high rates of poverty, along with other demographic indicators which are correlated with poorer health outcomes, such as race, and now are forced to face worse environmental conditions, putting them at greater risk for both the respiratory illness now, and other poor health outcomes in the future. This injustice comes against their will, but forces them to bear the greatest costs.
As described by a Washington Post Article on Covid's effects on African Americans, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/04/07/coronavirus-is-infecting-killing-black-americans-an-alarmingly-high-rate-post-analysis-shows/?arc404=true
the Surgeon General has articulated the virus' disproportionate harms on African Americans. Health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, are found in higher rates in African Americans than amongst other demographics (likely due to more environmental conditions which unjustly put them at risk), making them more susceptible to the disease. In Doughty County, Georgia, less than an hour from my home town, the epidemic has created a hot spot. The county has a population of 90,000, recording 973 positive cases and 56 deaths as of Tuesday. For a small town in south Georgia, those are huge numbers. Black residents make up 70% of the counties population and account for 90% of its deaths. It is troubling to see these issues hit so close to home, but hopefully our nation will take these types of injustices more seriously following the crisis.
Posted by: Christopher Watt | 04/09/2020 at 06:31 PM
We know that there are economic models that illustrate the economic inefficiency of letting petrochemical firms push the negative costs of their pollution onto the public. Of course, economic efficiency is not what we should be concerned about here. It is truly shameful and repugnant that there is an area of this country referred to as “Cancer Alley” where it is widely known that the emissions of petrochemical plants are literally killing the residents of the communities in which they are located. How is it that we know this and it continues to exist? Why do we seem to be (as a country) okay with “Cancer Alley”? At one point, the projected deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 was between 100,000 and 200,000. We have seen (for the most part) the country come together to fight this virus, and it seems to be working. Estimates of the death toll keep getting adjusted downward. I in no way mean to belittle the impact and threat of coronavirus. But, I want to draw attention to the fact that, according to a study from the American Medical Association, air pollution leads to the death of 200,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. This burden of death is disproportionately borne by individuals of color and those of lower socioeconomic status. What if we motivated the same response to this threat as we have to coronavirus? It seems to me that if we had tributes to individuals killed by pollution in places like “Cancer Alley” and Appalachia running on major news outlets every night, like we’ve had for those lost to coronavirus, there might not be so many lives lost each year. These people’s lives matter--I don't care about the economics. Although, I feel certain, as we’ve learned in this class, the way things are operating now is NOT efficient. We don’t have to produce energy or plastics in ways that kill people in our country and around the globe. We can do things in a better way, and we have a moral duty to do so. We don’t have to let climate change destroy lives in our country or around the world either. We can do things in a better way.
AMA article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2755672?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=112019
Posted by: Maisie Strawn | 04/09/2020 at 08:04 PM
Although the article itself is extremely alarming, there is a positive aspect in the fact that there are now many articles about environmental justice coming to the forefront of conversation. Wednesday, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, spoke out on how coronavirus is impacting marginalized groups, especially African Americans, at higher rates than other groups. He stated New York and Louisiana (especially NO) as examples and stated the same is likely occurring in Virginia, but that the data in Virginia is incomplete as 54% of people tested did not report their race and an additional 6% marked “other”. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other major news outlets have also released articles on how COVID-19 is impacting those in areas with high levels of pollution at higher rates due to weaker lungs and poorer health. Most of these articles also relate the issue to poverty and minority groups especially African American and members of the Latinx community. The thing that I find interesting is that it took a pandemic to bring this literature to the forefront. Extensive literature on environmental justice existed long before the coronavirus. For example, literature by Janet Currie, some of which we have read in this class, details several environmental factors that can impact health and welfare especially in children. Other literature, from the early 2000’s details how the SARS outbreak impacted those living in poverty and those who live in polluted areas at higher rates. But despite all the literature that exists, before COVID-19 people were either ignorant or just didn’t care about the health related impacts of pollution, or how it relates to equality in that those living in poverty and/or minorities are more likely to be impacted. This is interesting because it shows people are anything but logical, which is what we often assume we are. It all goes back to the Krugman piece where industries such as the coal industry work to discredit and suppress literature due to personal interest, the public remains ignorant, and ideology and party lines keep groups/politicians from acting in society society’s best interest. The EPA rollback on emissions can be attributed to definitely, interest and ideology, and some could argue ignorance, but I personally doubt that given the amount of literature that exists, so if it is ignorance it is willful ignorance given that the agency's existence is to in fact research and protect the environment (including environmental justice issues). In the future, I hope environmental justice continues to be focused on even after the buzz due to COVID-19 ends.
Article on Northam and VA: https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/virginias-data-on-how-coronavirus-affects-minorities-is-incomplete-northam-says-many-medical-providers-arent/article_a2683a31-e771-5c23-bbc1-89b74f1540c3.html
Posted by: Sydney Goldstein | 04/09/2020 at 08:24 PM
There are many different social and economic angles present in their article. We have spent much of the semester discussing the negative impacts of pollution on heart and respiratory health, so it makes sense that a severe respiratory illness would hit hardest in places with high levels of air pollution. As Sydney mentioned, it is a positive thing that environmental discussion has been receiving more attention as a result of the coronavirus. Hopefully, with the government more likely to take fast action than usual, drastic changes could be made to address the environmental issues, as well as the racial and socioeconomic disparities that result from them. It is sad to see that the administration has taken the opposite approach in loosening environmental restrictions that will speed up environmental damage, exacerbate existing inequities, and increasing the death toll from COVID-19. I understand the desire to support the nation's oil industry during the pandemic, but that seems like something that would have been better addressed in the $2.2T stimulus package than in reduced environmental standards.
I recently read an interesting article in the NY Times about racial disparities in coronavirus infection rates (I believe it's the one mentioned in class on Wednesday, but I will link it below anyway). It is sad to see that during such a severe pandemic when all people should be united that there are still such significant racial and socioeconomic inequities with regards to the virus in this country. There are many factors leading to this, such as environmental pollution concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods of color, poor access to health care, and being less likely to be able to work from home. The article also goes on to mention about how false information circulating has allowed this disparity to occur. The White House has not done a great job with providing citizens with consistent and correct information about the virus, coupled with the administration's discrediting of the media, which has created an environment where false information can spread. There was an issue with fake news articles being spread around Facebook about how African Americans were immune to the virus. This was very apparent back home, as it was often on Facebook and there were drastic racial differences between who adhered to the quarantine early on and who did not. A lot of places are still segregated for the most part, and there was a big difference between which gyms, churches, etc. stayed open past being instructed to close by the governor. This circles back to Trevor Noah's point about how Trump's discrediting of the media can have dangerous consequences, and this is just one example of that coming true.
NY Times article about racial inequity: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/us/coronavirus-race.html
Articles about Misinformation about the Virus
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/10/facebook-posts/melanin-doesnt-protect-against-coronavirus/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/coronavirus-outbreak-revives-dangerous-race-myths-pseudoscience-n1162326
https://archive.fo/oioB5
Posted by: Steven Black | 04/09/2020 at 09:59 PM
This article tied in our previous class discussion on environmental justice with certain communities facing increased exposure to air pollution. Cancer Alley is just one example of lower income communities of color experiencing greater exposure to air pollution, and suffering negative health effects from this. As it has come to national attention that minorities are experiencing higher death rates from Covid-19, this article helps to shed light on one of the many reasons for this. Individuals exposed to higher levels of air pollution are at an increased risk of developing complications from contracting Covid-19. Since minorities are exposed to air pollution at a higher rate, they are more susceptible to developing complications from Covid-19. When I looked up other articles relating to this topic, I found an interesting one on a slightly different but importantly related topic. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pke94n/cancer-alley-has-some-of-the-highest-coronavirus-death-rates-in-the-country . This article discussed how the negative economic impacts of Covid-19 will hit minorities the hardest. This is because they tend to work a greater proportion of hourly jobs already, have lower levels of wealth, and so are finding themselves currently struggling. The article also mentioned that according to data from the 2008 recession, minorities had a harder time recovering, which is likely to be a trend found if this economic turbulence reaches a recession as well. These economic impacts will only serve to further compound the health affects minorities face from air pollution induced respiratory diseases and Covid-19 because of cost related difficulties in receiving health care.
Posted by: Valerie Marshall | 04/09/2020 at 10:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Search