Melding Civil Rights and Environmentalism: Finding Environmental Justice's Place in Environmental Regulation

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Tseming Yang
{"title":"Melding Civil Rights and Environmentalism: Finding Environmental Justice's Place in Environmental Regulation","authors":"Tseming Yang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.285000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As one of the defining issues in environmental regulation over the past decade, the environmental justice movement has sought to bring civil rights and broader social justice issues to the forefront of environmental protection. The movement's challenge to traditional environmental regulation has distinguished itself because it has come from another group of political liberals rather than conservatives. Its goals remain largely unrealized, however, even though concerns about race and distributional equity in environmental protection are unlikely to go away. As explanations for this lack of success, scholars have pointed to specific legal doctrines as well as larger issues of lack of political power. Unfortunately, such accounts ignore the genuine concern and sincere efforts of many environmentalists and regulators in regard to these issues and the structural obstacles impeding attempts to change the environmental regulatory system. This essay seeks to provide a better understanding of these difficulties by examining the paradigms that civil rights law and environmental law have been based upon. A close analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, the foundational model for modern civil rights law, and the conceptions of environmental degradation put forth by Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring illustrates the contrasting structures, methodologies, and value premises of civil rights and environmental law. They provide important insights into the debate about the environmental justice movement and the difficulties that environmental regulators have encountered in addressing distributional equity and fairness concerns much more broadly. Efforts by environmental regulators to address the concerns of the environmental justice movement are unlikely to succeed without measures addressing these deeper-lying tensions.","PeriodicalId":45668,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Environmental Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2001-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.285000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

As one of the defining issues in environmental regulation over the past decade, the environmental justice movement has sought to bring civil rights and broader social justice issues to the forefront of environmental protection. The movement's challenge to traditional environmental regulation has distinguished itself because it has come from another group of political liberals rather than conservatives. Its goals remain largely unrealized, however, even though concerns about race and distributional equity in environmental protection are unlikely to go away. As explanations for this lack of success, scholars have pointed to specific legal doctrines as well as larger issues of lack of political power. Unfortunately, such accounts ignore the genuine concern and sincere efforts of many environmentalists and regulators in regard to these issues and the structural obstacles impeding attempts to change the environmental regulatory system. This essay seeks to provide a better understanding of these difficulties by examining the paradigms that civil rights law and environmental law have been based upon. A close analysis of Brown v. Board of Education, the foundational model for modern civil rights law, and the conceptions of environmental degradation put forth by Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring illustrates the contrasting structures, methodologies, and value premises of civil rights and environmental law. They provide important insights into the debate about the environmental justice movement and the difficulties that environmental regulators have encountered in addressing distributional equity and fairness concerns much more broadly. Efforts by environmental regulators to address the concerns of the environmental justice movement are unlikely to succeed without measures addressing these deeper-lying tensions.
融合公民权利与环境主义:寻找环境正义在环境规制中的地位
环境正义运动作为过去十年环境监管的决定性问题之一,力求将公民权利和更广泛的社会正义问题带到环境保护的最前沿。该运动对传统环境监管的挑战之所以与众不同,是因为它来自另一群政治自由主义者,而不是保守派。然而,它的目标在很大程度上仍未实现,尽管对环境保护中的种族和分配公平的担忧不太可能消失。为了解释这种失败,学者们指出了具体的法律理论以及政治权力缺乏的更大问题。不幸的是,这种说法忽视了许多环保人士和监管机构对这些问题的真正关注和真诚努力,以及阻碍改变环境监管制度的结构性障碍。本文试图通过考察民权法和环境法所依据的范式来更好地理解这些困难。通过对作为现代民权法基本模式的布朗诉教育委员会案,以及加勒特·哈丁的《公地悲剧》和雷切尔·卡森的《寂静的春天》所提出的环境退化概念的仔细分析,可以看出民权法和环境法的结构、方法论和价值前提的鲜明对比。它们为关于环境正义运动的辩论以及环境监管机构在更广泛地解决分配公平和公平问题时遇到的困难提供了重要的见解。如果不采取措施解决这些深层次的紧张关系,环境监管机构解决环境正义运动关切的努力不太可能成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Harvard Environmental Law Review is published semiannually by Harvard Law School students. Views expressed in the Review are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of HELR members. Editorial Policy: HELR has adopted a broad view of environmental affairs to include such areas as land use and property rights; air, water, and noise regula-tion; toxic substances control; radiation control; energy use; workplace pollution; science and technology control; and resource use and regulation. HELR is interested in developments on the local, state, federal, foreign, or international levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信