Pollution is because of production whose wastes spill over to other regions. There are three distinct patterns as far as geographical pollution distribution is concerned; first is where pollution is concentrated in agglomerations, for example, in third world countries, secondly where environmentally harmful activities are located in, for example, nuclear power stations. Finally, there is uniformly distributed pollution because of the government having strict environmental laws (Rauscher and Bourman n.pag). After the 1978, love canal scandal, activist are reframing toxic exposure issues using environmental justice According to Cable and Shrivera; Capek, (qtd in Daniels & Friedman 245). This perspective provides activist with a frame to claim not only is pollution and its exposure unevenly distributed across population, but it discriminates against disadvantaged groups especially the lower classes and minority racial groups.
Theorists like Bullard, (qtd in Daniels & Friedman 245) state, albeit controversially, that minority community particularly the blacks, the Asian-American, and Hispanic are targeted by polluting industries. Activists believe this is because of racial hostility and the fact that these communities lack political power and technical knowledge to resist. Blacks and Hispanic experience discrimination in housing, these constraints make it hard for them to move to areas like metropolitan areas. Whites are more likely to reside in suburbs than blacks and Hispanics. Racial discrimination in housing together with preferences of living areas by whites are two indirect process that most likely provide a mechanism, by which minorities become more proximate in terms of their resident to pollution than whites.
The impact on economic stratification is another central issue in environmental injustice. The uneven pollution distribution can be another manifestation of to the uneven income distribution. Polluting industries may choose to locate in lower class residential areas for a number of reasons; tax breaks and other incentives by the government put to attract business in such area and low costs of operation. However, residential areas could also change in response to the presence of a polluting industry. This means that even before people started living in these areas; the cost of housing was cheaper thus attracting the lower class (Daniels & Friedman 246).
The statistical data on population and pollution of 1990-200 shows a higher percentage of Hispanic living in polluted areas both in 1990and 2000, followed by Asians. The data on income distribution show the income of those living in polluted was much lower. This could be because housing in this area is much lower than in unpolluted areas. From this data, conclusion can be drawn that a high percentage of Asians and Hispanics are low-income earners. This data can be interpreted in two ways:
1) The two races, Asian- Americans and Hispanics, earn a lower average income, therefore, prompting them to look for lower housing residential areas. These areas are attractive to emission industries because of government incentives like lower tax rate.
2) Polluting companies choose to locate in localities where the high number of residents is blacks and Hispanic with the assumption, that they do not have the political power to fight them.
Regardless of the data interpretation, there is a high correlation between geographical distribution of pollution and income distribution. On the hand, low-income earners are also likely to settle in these areas, as the cost of living is much lower. Research has also shown that more Blacks and Whites than Asians and Hispanic are likely to live in suburbs. Suburbs are almost exclusively residential areas making it hard for any polluting industries to locate in these areas.
Asians and Hispanic have the highest percentages living in polluted areas does not necessarily mean a higher figure. The population of both Asians and Hispanic is lower than that of blacks and whites. On the other hand, they have the highest percentage in the low-income bracket, which explains them having a large percentage in polluted areas. This high number could be because these two races tend to live together in terms of families.
A policy aims at limiting industrial emission firms to decrease exposure to Latinos could be by the reaction of the housing market. From the data of the map and the population statistics, where these firms are located housing is cheap, which means these places provide housing for low-income earners. The low hosing cost in these areas is attributed to the location of these firms; if they are to be relocated, the housing market will react by increasing cost of housing. Latinos living in these areas are already low-income earners, which mean imposing this policy, will leave them unable to afford housing.
The government should put in place policies that will deal and help eliminate unequal distribution of pollution. They should also come up with a way ensuring that these emission industries compensate the residents of the localities in which they are located. This will play a significant role in reducing emissions from these industries.
Works Cited
Daniels, Gynis & Friendman, Samatha. “Spatial Inequality and the Distribution of Industrial Toxic Releases: Evidence from the 1990 TRI”. n.d, pag 245-246. Web. 14th March 2012. http://departments.colgate.edu/geography/People/elgie/geog225/text225/toxic%20release.pdf.
Rauscher, Michael, & Bouman, Mathijs. “Hot Spots, High Smoke Stacks and the Geography of Pollution”. n.d, n.pag, Web. 14th March 2012. http://siti.feem.it/worldcongress/abs2/rausch2.html.
