{"title":"Equalizing Remediation","authors":"Chinonso I. Anozie","doi":"10.59015/wlr.bhsb5188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Environmental harm remediation occurs far less than it should in minority and low-income communities. One in six Americans live within three miles of a designated toxic waste or contaminated site, which causes a variety of health hazards. Frequently, these sites are located within minority or low-income communities. Multinational corporations and even governmental agencies sometimes intentionally or negligently exploit loopholes to escape responsibility, especially when poor or low-income communities are involved. Lead agencies that focus on remediation efforts tend to have fewer resources in poorer areas. By contrast, in affluent communities, offending companies commence remediation efforts much more quickly. Such disparate remediation efforts contravene the principle of environmental justice. Delayed or inadequate environmental remediation exacerbates harm across the country, and it disproportionately harms numerous underprivileged U.S. communities. Often, environmental justice scholars and advocates focus on equal enforcement of current environmental protection laws. I argue current environmental protection laws leave room for unequal remediation, and equalizing remediation does not lie in the strict enforcement of current environmental protection laws, particularly, when similarly situated communities are involved. This Article initiates the conversation towards equalizing remediation by highlighting failures to equalize environmental harm remediation activities. It advocates for new policies, which better ensure no community is shortchanged in such activities based on race, geographical location, or income level. It argues for various statutory amendments and distinct regulations capable of better promoting equalized remediation of environmental harms and thereby advancing environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":54350,"journal":{"name":"Wisconsin Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wisconsin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.bhsb5188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Environmental harm remediation occurs far less than it should in minority and low-income communities. One in six Americans live within three miles of a designated toxic waste or contaminated site, which causes a variety of health hazards. Frequently, these sites are located within minority or low-income communities. Multinational corporations and even governmental agencies sometimes intentionally or negligently exploit loopholes to escape responsibility, especially when poor or low-income communities are involved. Lead agencies that focus on remediation efforts tend to have fewer resources in poorer areas. By contrast, in affluent communities, offending companies commence remediation efforts much more quickly. Such disparate remediation efforts contravene the principle of environmental justice. Delayed or inadequate environmental remediation exacerbates harm across the country, and it disproportionately harms numerous underprivileged U.S. communities. Often, environmental justice scholars and advocates focus on equal enforcement of current environmental protection laws. I argue current environmental protection laws leave room for unequal remediation, and equalizing remediation does not lie in the strict enforcement of current environmental protection laws, particularly, when similarly situated communities are involved. This Article initiates the conversation towards equalizing remediation by highlighting failures to equalize environmental harm remediation activities. It advocates for new policies, which better ensure no community is shortchanged in such activities based on race, geographical location, or income level. It argues for various statutory amendments and distinct regulations capable of better promoting equalized remediation of environmental harms and thereby advancing environmental justice.
期刊介绍:
The Wisconsin Law Review is a student-run journal of legal analysis and commentary that is used by professors, judges, practitioners, and others researching contemporary legal topics. The Wisconsin Law Review, which is published six times each year, includes professional and student articles, with content spanning local, state, national, and international topics. In addition to publishing the print journal, the Wisconsin Law Review publishes the Wisconsin Law Review Forward and sponsors an annual symposium at which leading scholars debate a significant issue in contemporary law.