Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
Luke Cole's article, “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection,” called into
question the paradigm behind many of the large environmental protection laws. I thought
his claim that environmental laws are poorly suited to provide environmental justice
because they focus on a 'bad actor' was intriguing. Even though I have taken 17.32,
(Environmental Politics and Policy), I have never considered that environmental laws
could aim to protect individuals from the 'normal operations' of polluters. I believe that
revising the current laws to guard vulnerable populations against 'normal operations'
pollution would go a long way in rectifying environmental injustice. Additionally, I
believe that such a strategy could procure large environmental benefits for society as a
whole. Targeting the 'normal operations' of known polluters would likely generate stricter
environmental laws in general.
I believe that such a strategy would be effective because of the inherent problems
associated with siting environmentally hazardous industries. As Cole and Sheila Foster
highlight in “From the Ground Up,” the characteristics used to site environmental hazards
(“cheap land, appropriate zoning, low population densities, proximity to transportation,
and the absence of hospitals and school”) are race neutral if considered in a vacuum.
Unfortunately, they are closely correlated to race and income within our society. If such
criteria cannot be used to site environmental hazards, what can? It seems that no matter
how hard we strive to equally distribute environmental hazards, some people are always
going to suffer more than others. Considered from a utilitarian stance of procuring the
greatest good from the greatest number of people, some siting decisions are much more
logical than others. Given a lack of better criteria with which chose where to site
environmentally risky industries, it may be best to mitigate the health effects of those
toxic industries. Targeting the normal operations of many companies is a perfect way to
accomplish this. While it may not be popular, it may prove more popular, and more
economically feasible, than placing a landfill in the middle of Beverly Hills.
I'd like to discuss what type of paradigm the government uses when choosing where to
site toxic facilities. For example, does the government explicitly use a “greatest good
from the greatest number,” or does it subscribe to some other logic? I would also like to
discuss whether there are any siting criteria which are not correlated with race and class.
If not, is there any way to fairly employ such criteria?
