The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
The three readings this week trace the development of the environmental justice (EJ) movement at
the national and local scales, highlighting the separate and sometimes conflicting goals of the
mainstream environmental movement and the emerging EJ movement. Traditional environmentalist
aims have been advanced often at the national level through costly litigation and by large
membership organizations like Sierra Club and Audubon that lobby and promote policy change via
centralized networks of power. In contrast, EJ arose simultaneously in a number of different
localities, in response to a variety of environmental threats, often through grassroots, community-
led organizing. The Cole and Foster piece offers a useful overview of the contributing paradigms
and focus areas that shape this hybrid movement, as well as identifying (in common with Gottlieb) a
few key events that catalyzed the movement and brought it into the broader public awareness. Both
texts refer to the Warren County anti-dump actions, Cesar Chavez’s United Farm Worker
organizing, and the 1991 First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as
seminal moments (among others) in the creation of an EJ consciousness. It is also clear from all
three texts that the EJ movement was and is shaped by the research and writings of Robert Bullard,
and I am curious as to why that is so. My main question is: with such diverse inputs, where will EJ
go from here? The principles of the 1991 Summit can serve as an inspiration point and a vision
document, but it is also necessary to investigate the strengths and areas of potential greatest impact
for this concept.
I am less interested in the notion of EJ as extending the NIMBY-capacity to disenfranchised
communities that previously could not access the means to fight off noxious facilities, and am more
interested in a sort of reframing of the understanding of the environment. Although Checker’s piece
indeed discusses fighting an incinerator, she touches on this reframing as a means for more
inclusive coalition-building. She notes that activists are “expanding the meaning of the
environment to include a host of urban resources” and that “the built environment historically
divided activists into competitive groups that were considered mutually exclusive. The intangible
environment, however, in its unhealthy state, provided an initial basis upon which activists could
find a common ground.” (Checker: 136, 144) The more that the environment can be understood as a
determinant of quality of life, with vital interaction effects to other concerns of poverty and crime,
the more relevant I believe it can be made to communities of all sorts. My own experiences in urban
forestry demonstrated that the environment--in being either a threat or a resource, but ultimately
something that is shared and ethereal--can serve as a useful organizing tool. We cannot risk losing
the complexity or depth of differing issues, but I believe investigation into this capacity of the
environment is worthwhile. Instead of considering the environment as something that is “out there”
in Yellowstone, accessible and relevant only to the wealthy, environmental justice can bring an
understanding of natural resources back to the places in which we live. I would argue that much of
the strength of EJ lies in its place-based, community-led, and often urban approach. The core EJ
idea of self-determination is also powerful, in that we as citizens have a right to determine the
texture of our physical environments. This concept can allow us to think of broader natural resource
issues and socioeconomic structures, along with concerns related to siting noxious facilities. I mean
not to eclipse or ignore the efforts of communities of color to advocate on their own behalf;
however I recognize that if EJ plays out solely as a series of costly and often unsuccessful legal
battles or organizing actions, some of its exciting potential may be lost.
