Environmental Inequality Formation
Pellow introduces his EIF framework as a way to frame inquiry and understanding of issues of environmental
(in)justice. Its three main distinctions:
1. environmental injustice is not just a single harmful event/action/result, but rather a complicated history of
political, social, and economic interactions leading up to, and continuing beyond, the contested instance of
perceived injustice
2. environmental injustice result from decisions made by all parties which may seem contradictory or change
over time with shifting circumstances--this is in opposition to the simple Them v. Us or Perpetrator-Victim frame
3. a life-cycle perspective must be taken on hazard production and consumption in order to fully account for
the distribution of costs and benefits in time and space related to hazards
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
1. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
2. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
3. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
5. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
6. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
4. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all over the
world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and Project
Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
8. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
9. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
5. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all over the
world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and Project
Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
10. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
11. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
12. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
6. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all over the
world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and Project
Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
13. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
14. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
15. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
7. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all over the
world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and Project
Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
vv In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-
recycling program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of
interests represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the
incinerator closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one
environmental injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI
are unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
16. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
17. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban and
affluent populations look outside their neighborhoods to protect the ‘unspoiled’ environment that puts them in
direct conflict with those people inhabiting the proposed conservation site. Issues that arise include (in)equitable
legal access, cultural/indigenous legitimacy (eg Khoi/San people who do not live as hunter-gatherers are not
entitled to traditional lands etc), rural preservation to compensate for urban pollution, what is ‘fair’
compensation?, what is the value of conservation for the various stakeholders?
18. System of emissions trading, where countries can buy unused emissions allotments from lessdeveloped
countries. Is this system in the best interest of the global population/environment? What is fair compensation?
Who benefits from the compensation? What are the long term health, social, and economic effects? Does it
reinforce or widen the disparity between developed and less-developed nations?
In general, I think Pellow’s points are good ones, though his choice of the Chicago WMI incinerator-turned-recycling
program for an illustrative case study was problematic in places. He rightly points out the complex set of interests
represented by government, community, and environmental groups that worked together to get the incinerator
closed and recycling program initiated, but he then continues to suggest that they walked from one environmental
injustice (the incinerator) into another (poor labor practices). I think that the labor abuses by WMI are
unacceptable by all means, but I do not see how they constitute a new environmental injustice posed to the
community. It seems more like sad irony. There is definitely the issue of workers health and exposure, but, again, I
think that is at a different level than community hazards exposure in that it is more voluntary (though still
inexcusable) and rectified by different means (labor unions, arbitration, active resistance at the workplace). I don’t
think that recycling was the wrong choice in this case, and I don’t think any of the involved parties, except maybe
WMI would be satisfied with the result, rather, I think they would all agree to see it refined to be more worker-
friendly as well as community-friendly.
The Justice of Environmental Justice - David Schlosberg
Defines justice, as it pertains to the environment, to include three main factors that are inseparably linked:
Distribution-- (in)equity in the spatial location of environmental ills
Recognition-- legitimacy of affected parties, their knowledge and concerns; a recognition of identity and inequity
Participation-- non-tokenist participation of the affected community in decision-making and oversight
I did not care for this paper particularly. It restated the three aspects listed above over and over as a theoretical
basis for approaching issues of justice without making the importance of such distinctions clear in the realm of
environmental justice. I think all of these factors are critical to having a just society, but the equity of distribution
seems to be a result of the other two factors. In the case of environmental justice, it is the disproportionate risk
and burden placed on disenfranchised and unempowered communities that drives an examination of their unjust
situation as it relates to recognition and participation.
I am confused by a couple of the recurrent statements of the paper regarding recognition of social differences and
their role in equitable distribution. Also, ‘postmaterial.’
Project Ideas:
I think I would prefer to do two smaller project/papers, though I am still conflicted. Here are the ideas I am
thinking about right now:
Project
I would really like to do a design project based on a GIS of various population and environmental statistics. The
problem is, I have no idea how readily available spatial data is (maybe from the census or EPA monitoring). I think
it would be very interesting to put together a visual presentation based on geographic maps of various social,
economic, and environmental metrics -to persuade and imply connection without direct use of statistics. Some of
the things I was thinking about were: topography and income; SOx, NOx, ozone; the courses of the most polluted
waterways; military bases and reservations; racial composition, population density, population growth and decay
over the past 100 years… many things, but I need to find out about data coverage
Papers
8. GM food aid-- I am only vaguely familiar with the situation in Zambia, but am interested in finding out
more about the role of GMOs in development aid (both as institutionalized long-term development projects and as
immediate famine relief). What are the costs and benefits, known and supposed risks, from economic, social, and
health perspectives?
4. Land/wildlife conservation and displaced people-- many examples from southern Africa, and I am sure all
over the world as well. How to reconcile conservation with rural/indigenous culture and land-rights. Urban andvv
