Michigan: A State of Environmental Justice?

1

INTRODUCTION

Bunyan Bryant and Elaine Hockman

…the question is not growth, but how do we grow in sustainable ways that ensure distributive justice, and in ways that support cultural and biological diversity. We need a Marshall Plan, similar to the one crafted for the war-torn cities of Europe after World War II, and the services of the National Guard and as many volunteers as possible to help clean up our cities to make them environmentally benign and livable. We need a health care program, particularly for those people living near these noxious facilities. Too often people are subsidizing the profits of industries with their health and health-care medical bills.

There are several reasons for this book. It is to bring people's attention to the impact of the by-products of growth and development in the state of Michigan: who wins and who loses? While economic growth has been good for some, it has been devastating for others; the by-products of growth and development have threatened the lives of people who breathe polluted air, drink contaminated water, and whose children play on polluted soil. Because of the legacy of racism and classism in the state of Michigan, poor people are forced to live and work in areas with the greatest negative environmental impact. Let us be clear right from the beginning. We are not against economic growth and development; we are against certain kinds of economic growth and development—i.e., growth and development that expose people to unnecessary environmental harms. We feel it is possible to have economic growth and development and environmental protection and we will explore this possibility later on in the book. Even though this book is focused on Michigan, we feel this state is a prime example of environmental injustice because it has a large industrial sector, a large number of toxic inventory citations, Superfund sites, brownfields, and hazardous waste disposal facilities located disproportionately in racially segregated communities and in communities of poverty.

Another reason for this book is to focus the reader's attention on the devastating environmental problems faced by low-income people and people of color and the need to address them now rather than later. Later might be too late since thousands of people suffer from toxic-induced and aggravated diseases, including respiratory problems and a variety of cancers, linked to ambient air quality and a variety of toxic exposures. This book challenges the myth that blacks are disinterested in the environment—a myth that is blatantly not true. People of color have always been interested in clean, safe, and productive environments and an improved quality of live. Lessons we draw from Michigan can be easily applied to the nation as a whole.

Several audiences should read this book. Policymakers, regardless of level of government, should read it to help them become more aware of and concerned about the depth and breath of environmental problems so that they can make more informed policy decisions. This book should be read by corporate executives, regardless of corporate size or hierarchy, and regardless of their political persuasion, because it challenges them to alter their harmful production practices. It should be read by academics interested in researching problems of environmental injustice and thus making their findings readily available to policymakers and the broader public. It should be read by laypeoples to help them protect themselves and their communities against decisions that would do them harm. Although the quantitative analysis in this book does not prove cause and effect, it does show significant associations that support the already growing body of knowledge demonstrating the connection between health status and where people live. We feel that such demonstrations could be the foundations for key environmental policies.

Again, let us be clear. There are no easy answers to the questions raised in this book. Over the years companies have spewed out toxic poisons from smokestacks, dumped hazardous waste into our waterways, and buried toxins in the depths of our land without thinking of their harmful effects. It will take billions of dollars to right past wrongs and to protect communities from future wrongs. This book focuses not only on what the private and public sectors are doing but also on what they are not doing. Why is the government not cleaning up hazardous waste sites, particularly those in minority communities? Why is the government refusing to enforce environmental regulations to provide equal protection of the law? We will attempt to answer these and other questions in this book.

Michigan is not unique; the pollution problems experienced here in Michigan haunt people in states throughout the country, even though the pollution may take on different forms. We have created a racially segregated state and one with considerable number of toxic inventory citations, Superfund sites, brownfields, and hazardous waste disposal facilities, and one where a considerable number of people live in poverty. We must not despair; we can make a difference if we set our minds to it. Again the question is not growth, but how do we grow in sustainable ways that ensure distributive justice, and in ways that support cultural and biological diversity. We need a Marshall Plan, similar to the one crafted for the war-torn cities of Europe after World War II, and the services of the National Guard and as many volunteers as possible to help cleanup our cities to make them environmentally benign and livable. We need a health care program, particularly for those people living near these noxious facilities. Too often people are subsidizing the profits of industries with their health and health-care medical bills. All too often those living in proximity to hazardous waste facilities are the least protected by insurance. Perhaps their health condition will improve somewhat, since Congress has passed a health care bill making health insurance affordable regardless of a person's income or prior condition. But the real protection against illness is related to structural inequalities, poverty and the environmental conditions under which people are forced to live.

Lay people should demand that cumulative impact analysis be made before additional siting in the area, and that industry pick up the cost for citizen participation and analysis. Since the automobile is responsible for over 50 percent of societal pollution, citizen groups should demand more mass transit systems.

Why is it important to solve these most pressing problems? Because at the rate we are going we are squandering our biological capital. We are spoiling the global nest and causing considerable sickness and death. Our economy and quality of life depend upon healthy people, and healthy people depend upon a healthy environment.

During the 1940s, one of the largest wartime conversions took place in the history of the state. Automobile factories were converted to produce tanks and bombers. Blacks and whites migrated from the South to the North to work in the plants. Jobs in the North provided an unprecedented opportunity to make more money than ever. Even following the war, blacks and whites continued to migrate to work in the automobile factories. Jobs were plentiful, earnings high, and a high school diploma was not required. Workers could realize the American dream of buying their own home and sending their children to college. All this could be done with little or no skills.

But while Michigan industry produced social goods, it also produced social bads. In those days the spoilage of the land and ambient air, and the harmful effects to personal health and the environment, were seldom on the radar screen. Today all that has changed because people are more aware of the negative health impacts of environmental pollution. Today people at risk are demanding environmental regulations to protect their communities against harm. Historically, corporate managers have attempted to blame their economic woes on environmental regulations. If workers chose to side with environmentalists or if they chose to embrace environmental regulations, then corporate managers would often threaten them with dismissal, claiming that to adhere to such regulations would be too time consuming and cut too deeply into profit margins. Therefore, the employers said, they would have to close shop and move to distant ports for cheaper resources, cheaper labor, and fewer environmental regulations.

This line of argument is all based upon the fact that the cost of production increases as more environmental restrictions impair the creation of goods and services. But employers seldom advance the argument that environmental regulations protect people, their health, and the environment. With good intention, former Gov. John Engler and Russell Harding, director of the Council for Environmental Quality, have very successfully used this basic economic argument in their campaign against EPA and environmental organizations dedicated to environmental protection. Both Engler and Harding believed that the economy can be stimulated by dismantling environmental regulations. Arguments used by Engler and Harding, buttressed by anecdotal evidence, were very convincing. Numerous examples can be cited to demonstrate that environmental regulations reduce jobs, take a bite out of the economy, and leave workers impoverished and dependent. Undoubtedly jobs will be lost because old and inefficient industries cannot afford to retrofit their equipment to be environmentally benign.

Although this argument is convincing and simplistic, it is only part of the story. The dismantling of regulations only shifts the cost of production from industry to people. When these costs are externalized, people pay for the price of production in the form of health care bills for treatment of a variety of toxic-induced or aggravated diseases. Is it fair for people to bear the costs of production that should be borne by corporations? Another part of the story in support of environmental regulations: In 1992, Bezdek reported that since the 1960s spending to protect the environment has been growing three times faster than the gross domestic product (GDP). Because of the largesse of the spending to protect the environment, a whole new industry has developed—an industry that has contributed immensely to economic growth and development. Meyer (1992) reported that cities with ambitious environmental regulations had the highest level of economic growth. Other studies reported that pollution control measures had little or no effect on trading of goods and services or economic competitiveness (Leonard, 1989; Tobey, 1990; Porter, 1990; Cropper and Oates, 1992). In 1998, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that employers attributed 0.1 percent of all layoffs to environmentally related decisions (Forwarded from Lee, 1990). Even at the international level we see environmental regulations having a positive effect.

At the international level creative responses to stringent environmental regulations can be good for the economy. In the 1980s, Germany and Japan, with the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, experienced robust economies; profit was substantial and jobs were in abundance. Environmental regulations forced the managers of corporations in these countries to be creative. Instead of spending large sums of money to fight these regulations, they used that time and energy to develop pollution abatement control technology, and at this point they are cornering the world market on such technology. The State of California has been forced to adhere to strict environmental regulations, and at certain times it has experienced an economic boom. Although they have a ways to go, Californians enjoy much cleaner air now than four decades ago. Even now, the Obama administration believes that spending to protect the environment will create more jobs and a healthy economy.

There are several reasons why environmental regulations are good for the economy and good for the people of Michigan. Environmental regulations force companies to be competitive and to re-engineer their technology to be more energy efficient, cost effective, and thus squander fewer amounts of our precious biological capital. The production of more efficient goods and services would cut our waste stream significantly, leaving less toxic waste, which is often destined for disposal facilities located in people of color communities. While state government officials believe that environmental regulations diminish the wealth of a nation, these regulations in fact transfer wealth from polluters to pollution controllers, and to less polluting firms. It is this biological capital that undergirds the economic and social institutions of the state. Once this capital is squandered, so are the lives of its citizens. Today many companies in Michigan owe both their profit, and even their very existence, to environmental protection spending. These are companies that profit from the production and sale of pollution abatement and control technology to help industry become cleaner and more energy efficient. Conventional wisdom ignores the benefits that may be produced by environmental programs and policies—programs and polices that result in cleaner and healthier air, water, and land for the people of Michigan.

Throughout this book, we will address the issues of racism, environmental racism, environmental equity, and environmental justice. As more articles appear in professional journals and the popular press, there is growing need for more definitive and operational definitions of these terms. The definitions are not carved in stone, and will undoubtedly be fine-tuned as we continue the discourse in coming years. While the first definition that follows is based upon the conceptual thinking of Terry (1970) and Katz (1978), the second, third, and fourth definitions are based upon our own conceptual thinking to date. Environmental racism, equity, and justice are yet to be defined in the professional literature in any precise way. The definition of hazardous waste is from the work of Miller (1988). We hope the definitions put forth in this chapter will provide a conceptual framework for a substantive discourse on the differential environmental impacts experienced by people of color and people of low-income here in the state of Michigan. We start with defining racism as practiced in this country.

Racism: When we speak of racism we refer to the systematic use of cultural norms and values, institutional rules, regulations, and policies, unfair historical accounts, and individual attitudes and opinions used to arbitrarily exclude, dominate, humiliate, insult, and deny opportunities to people of color based upon prescribed biological characteristics. Racism may be thought of as a pattern of decisions or policies at both the individual and institutional level to relegate, consciously or unconsciously, people of color to deplorable working, living, and schooling conditions (Katz, 1978; Terry, 1970).

Environmental Racism: Environmental racism is an extension of racism; it is when those institutional rules, regulations, and policies of government or corporate decisions are used to select arbitrarily people of color communities for least undesirable land uses (LULUs), based in part or solely upon the racial and socio-economic characteristics of those neighborhoods. We have thus observed a national pattern of disproportionately higher numbers of fugitive emissions, hazardous waste and disposal facilities, and sewage treatment plants in people of color and people of low-income communities than in more affluent white communities.

Environmental Equity: We may think of environmental equity as the equal protection of environmental laws. Environmental laws should be equally enforced to ensure proper siting and timely cleanups of hazardous waste and polluting industries, regardless of whether the community is affluent or regardless of its racial or ethnic make-up.

Environmental Justice: Environmental justice is much broader than environmental equity. It refers to those cultural norms and values, institutional rules, regulations, and policies or decisions that support sustainable communities, where people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and productive. Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest potential, without experiencing discrimination based on race, class, ethnicity or national origin. Environmental justice is supported by decent paying and safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment; and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. These are communities where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and highly revered, and where distributive justice prevails.

Hazardous Waste: Hazardous waste may be defined as any discarded material that may pose a substantial threat to human beings or the environment when managed improperly. Such waste can exist in solid, liquid, or gaseous form; it may also include ignitable, corrosive, or dangerously reactive substances. Examples of such waste are lead, mercury, acids, cyanides, herbicides and pesticides, solvents from dry cleaners, arsenic, cadmium, soil contaminated with PCBs, dioxins, fly and ground ash from incinerators, infectious waste from hospitals and research laboratories, radioactive materials, and obsolete explosives, and nerve gas stockpiled by the Defense Department (Miller, 1988).

Why the State of Michigan is Important in Studying Environmental Injustice?

There are many reasons why Michigan is a good site to study environmental justice. First, because of the manufacturing sector, Michigan has 77 hazardous waste sites listed on the Environmental Protection Agency's national priority list, making it the fifth worst state in the country for the number of listed sites (Statistical Abstract, 1992). Although Michigan has lost a number of industries over the years, it is still considered a major industrial state. According to the 1989 Toxic Release Inventory, 74,122,909 pounds of chemicals were emitted in Michigan. Of these emissions, 80% of them end up in the air. Additionally, Table 1 above shows some startling facts regarding the five cities within the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). It shows that particulate air pollution (PM-10) contributes significantly to mortality. For the purpose of comparison the table 1 above also shows the total number of cardiopulmonary deaths in the MSA and the number of deaths from car accidents.

Table 1. Estimated Annual Cardiopulmonary Deaths in the MSA from PM-10 and the Number of Deaths from Car Accidents.

Point estimates are derived from the risk ratio reported in the American Cancer Society (ACS) study. Ranges are derived from 95-percent confidence intervals around the risk ratio in the ACS study.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are as defined by the Office of Management and Budget for 1980, except for New England, where areas are New England County Metropolitan Areas.

Natural Resources Defense Council. (no date) Retrieved April 14, 2003 from the Natural Resources Defense Council Web site: http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/bt/MI.asp

Every year in Michigan older power plants trigger 18,500 asthma attacks, many of which occur in children. Eleven thousand of these attacks would be avoided if these plants were forced to comply with the law and install pollution controls. Due to the exposure of power plant pollution, Michigan citizens lose 159,000 workdays. However, sixty percent fewer lost workdays and 523 fewer deaths would be avoided by enacting the Clean Power Act which would require old and antiquated power plants to limit their pollutants (Natural Resources Defense Council, no date).

Although the state of Michigan not only produces 50 million cubic yards of solid waste annually, (Michigan Waste Industries Association, no date), but the state up until 2006 imported millions of tons of trash from Canada and surrounding areas (Roper and van Guilder, 2006). Even though this was a big victory, Michigan's trash generating abilities will continue to grow--i.e., more slowly thus indicating that the siting and expansion of landfills will perhaps continue to be a growth area. There is more. In 1999, Michigan registered 18 unhealthy air days, second only to Pennsylvania (Minnesota Issue Watch, 2002). According to SEMCOG, Michigan has on the average 10 ozone action days per-season and had as many as 25 in (1999). In 2003, when Michigan smog pollution levels ranked 11th worst in the nation, smog levels in the Detroit Metropolitan Area exceeded EPA's health standards ranking the city 25th for the worst smog pollution among U.S. major cities (PIRGIM, 2004). Polluted waterways, and weak enforcement of pollution control laws are all threats to the health of the people of Michigan. Second, the accumulation structure is dominated by the automobile and related industries, particularly in the southeastern part of the State. The social structure of accumulation cannot exist unless there are safe, easy, and relatively inexpensive ways of disposing of toxic and hazardous waste or protecting our air, water, and land. The landscape in the southeastern part of the state is not only dominated by the automobile industry, but it has more landfills and incinerators and hazardous disposal facilities than perhaps any other place in the state.

Third, of the approximately 1,291,706 blacks, making up 13.9% of the State's population, about 60% live in Detroit. Compared to the white population, the geographic distribution of blacks is highly concentrated. As of 1990, while almost two-thirds of Michigan's white population lived in urban areas, almost the entire black population (97.1%) lived in urban areas. Approximately, 80% of Detroiters are black. Outside of the city of Detroit, large numbers of blacks live in Flint, Benton Harbor, Pontiac, and Grand Rapids, giving Michigan the reputation of being the most segregated state in the union with respect to race, and one of the most segregated by income (Rusk, 1993). Detroit, next to Benton Harbor, a city of 12,000 people, is the most segregated city in the State.

Fourth, the next largest population group is the Hispanics (201,596), who make up about 2% of the state population. Although Hispanics in the United States originate from more than a dozen Spanish-speaking countries, the largest group of Hispanics (about 69%) in Michigan are of Mexican origin. Although their percentage in the state population is small, they also tend to live in close proximity to toxic and hazardous waste more so than their more affluent white counterparts. A part of this population is invisible because each summer they work in the fields to harvest crops, spending long hours at back-breaking labor. They are often engulfed in pesticides and suffer from a number of health problems associated with their jobs. Also there is a sizable Arab population in the Dearborn area. They are over exposed to toxins from Ford Motor and other surrounding companies. Over the years, government health agencies have expressed considerable concerns about the health conditions of minorities.

Fifth, the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment has played a key role in researching and bringing currency to the disproportionate impacts of environmental hazards on people of color and low-income groups. In 1990, Bryant and Mohai invited scholar-activists to write and present papers at a retrieval/dissemination conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards. The outcome of this conference led to a book called Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards, and a series of high-level policy meetings with EPA Administrators William K. Reilly and Carol Browner. This conference and other scholar-activists played a key role in getting President Clinton to sign the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. In 1990, Mohai and Bryant were co-principal investigators of the Detroit Area Study, which has served as the basis for several articles for peer-review journals.

Sixth, Michigan is the home of both very liberal and conservative tendencies. Over the years the labor movement has championed liberal causes such as increased wages and improved workplace safety conditions for workers; it has bargained for increased retirement packages and fringe benefits. It has been at the forefront of decent welfare and mental health programs for workers and the surrounding community. Yet on the other hand, George Wallace won the Michigan democratic primary in the 1960s. School buses were fire bombed in the 1970s to prevent school desegregation. In the early 1970s, the principal of Willow Run High School was tarred and feathered because of his liberal educational views. With the exception of Ohio, Michigan has more than twice the number of hate groups as compared to most other Midwestern states (Center for New Community, 2001).

The case study and research chapters included in this book describe only a few of the struggles that people in Michigan waged against toxins and those responsible for them. That struggle continues to take place in the cities of Inkster and Hamtramck, and in Augustna, Sumpter, and many other townships. The defeat of the proposed medical waste incinerator in Highland Park and the phase out of the Ford Hospital Medical Waste Incinerator are victories that should be celebrated. As more and more low-income and minority communities become aware of their vulnerability, and as they become aware of numerous environmental stressors in their communities, they may be motivated to resist government and corporate attempts to use their communities for waste disposal sites. Hazardous and toxic waste may shape both the civil rights and the environment movement in the 21st Century.