CIESIN Reproduced, with permission, from: Bullard, R. D. 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality


Boulder * San Francisco * Oxford


Environmentalism and Social Justice

The environmental movement in the United States emerged with agendas that focused on such areas as wilderness and wildlife preservation, resource conservation, pollution abatement, and population control. It was supported primarily by middle- and upper-middle-class whites. Although concern about the environment cuts across racial and class lines, environmental activism has been most pronounced among individuals who have above-average education, greater access to economic resources, and a greater sense of personal efficacy.[1]

Mainstream environmental organizations were late in broadening their base of support to include blacks and other minorities, the poor, and working-class persons. The "energy crisis" in the 1970s provided a major impetus for the many environmentalists to embrace equity issues confronting the poor in this country and in the countries of the Third World.[2] Over the years, environmentalism has shifted from a "participatory" to a "power" strategy, where the "core of active environmental movement is focused on litigation, political lobbying, and technical evaluation rather than on mass mobilization for protest marches."[3]

An abundance of documentation shows blacks, lower-income groups, and working-class persons are subjected to a disproportionately large amount of pollution and other environmental stressors in their neighborhoods as well as in their workplaces.[4] However, these groups have only been marginally involved in the nation's environmental movement. Problems facing the black community have been topics of much discussion in recent years. (Here, we use sociologist James Blackwell's definition of the black community, "a highly diversified set of interrelated structures and aggregates of people who are held together by forces of white oppression and racism."[5]) Race has not been eliminated as a factor in the allocation of community amenities.

Research on environmental quality in black communities has been minimal. Attention has been focused on such problems as crime, drugs, poverty, unemployment, and family crisis. Nevertheless, pollution is exacting a heavy toll (in health and environmental costs) on black communities across the nation. There are few studies that document, for example, the way blacks cope with environmental stressors such as municipal solid-waste facilities, hazardous-waste landfills, toxic-waste dumps, chemical emissions from industrial plants, and on-the-job hazards that pose extreme risks to their health. Coping in this case is seen as a response to stress and is defined as "efforts, both action-oriented and intrapsychic, to manage, i.e., master, tolerate, reduce, minimize, environmental and internal demands, conflicts among them, which tax or exceed a person's resources."[6] Coping strategies employed by individuals confronted with a stressor are of two general types: problem-focused coping (e.g., individual and/or group efforts to directly address the problem) and emotion-focused coping (e.g., efforts to control one's psychological response to the stressor). The decision to take direct action or to tolerate a stressor often depends on how individuals perceive their ability to do something about or have an impact on the stressful situation. Personal efficacy, therefore, is seen as a factor that affects environmental and political activism.[7]

Much research has been devoted to analyzing social movements in the United States. For example, hundreds of volumes have been written in the past several years on the environmental, labor, antiwar, and civil rights movements. Despite this wide coverage, there is a dearth of material on the convergence (and the divergence, for that matter) of environmentalism and social justice advocacy. This appears to be the case in and out of academia. Moreover, few social scientists have studied environmentalism among blacks and other ethnic minorities. This oversight is rooted in historical and ideological factors and in the composition of the core environmental movement and its largely white middle-class profile.

Many of the interactions that emerged among core environmentalists, the poor, and blacks can be traced to distributional equity questions. How are the benefits and burdens of environmental reform distributed? Who gets what, where, and why? Are environmental inequities a result of racism or class barriers or a combination of both? After more than two decades of modern environmentalism, the equity issues have not been resolved. There has been, however, some change in the way environmental problems are presented by mainstream environmental organizations. More important, environmental equity has now become a major item on the local (grassroots) as well as national civil rights agenda.[8]

Much of the leadership in the civil rights movement came from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Black college students were on the "cutting edge" in leading sit-in demonstrations at lunch counters, libraries, parks, and public transit systems that operated under Jim Crow laws. In The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, Aldon D. Morris wrote:

The tradition of protest is transmitted across generations by older relatives, black institutions, churches, and protest organizations. Blacks interested in social change inevitably gravitate to this "protest community," where they hope to find solutions to a complex problem.

The modern civil rights movement fits solidly into this rich tradition of protest. Like the slave revolts, the Garvey Movement, and the March on Washington, it was highly organized. Its significant use of the black religious community to accomplish political goals also linked the modern movement to the earlier mass movements which also relied heavily on the church.[9]

Social justice and the elimination of institutionalized discrimination were the major goals of the civil rights movement. Many of the HBCUs are located in some of the most environmentally polluted communities in the nation. These institutions and their students, thus, have a vested interest in seeing that improvements are made in local environmental quality. Unlike their move to challenge other forms of inequity, black student-activists have been conspicuously silent and relatively inactive on environmental problems. Moreover, the resources and talents of the faculties at these institutions have also been underutilized in assisting affected communities in their struggle against polluters, including government and private industries.

The problem of polluted black communities is not a new phenomenon. Historically, toxic dumping and the location of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) have followed the "path of least resistance," meaning black and poor communities have been disproportionately burdened with these types of externalities. However, organized black resistance to toxic dumping, municipal waste facility siting, and discriminatory environmental and land-use decisions is a relatively recent phenomenon.[10] Black environmental concern has been present but too often has not been followed up with action.

Ecological concern has remained moderately high across nearly all segments of the population. Social equity and concern about distributive impacts, however, have not fared so well over the years. Low-income and minority communities have had few advocates and lobbyists at the national level and within the mainstream environmental movement. Things are changing as environmental problems become more "potent political issues [and] become increasingly viewed as threatening public health."[11]

The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s, dominated by the middle class, built an impressive political base for environmental reform and regulatory relief. Many environmental problems of the 1980s and l990s, however, have social impacts that differ somewhat from earlier ones. Specifically, environmental problems have had serious regressive impacts. These impacts have been widely publicized in the media, as in the case of the hazardous-waste problems at Love Canal and Times Beach. The plight of polluted minority communities is not as well known as the New York and Missouri tragedies. Nevertheless, a disproportionate burden of pollution is carried by the urban poor and minorities.[12]

Few environmentalists realized the sociological implications of the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon.[13] Given the political climate of the times, the hazardous wastes, garbage dumps, and polluting industries were likely to end up in somebody's backyard. But whose backyard? More often than not, these LULUs ended up in poor, powerless, black communities rather than in affluent suburbs. This pattern has proven to be the rule, even though the benefits derived from industrial waste production are directly related to affluence.[14] Public officials and private industry have in many cases responded to the NIMBY phenomenon using the place-in-blacks'-backyard (PIBBY) principle.[15]

Social activists have begun to move environmentalism to the left in an effort to address some of the distributional impact and equity issues.[16] Documentation of civil rights violations has strengthened the move to make environmental quality a basic right of all individuals. Rising energy costs and a continued erosion of the economy's ability to provide jobs (but not promises) are factors that favor blending the objectives of labor, minorities, and other "underdogs" with those of middle-class environmentalists.[17] Although ecological sustainability and socioeconomic equality have not been fully achieved, there is clear evidence that the 1980s ushered in a new era of cooperation between environmental and social justice groups. While there is by no means a consensus on complex environmental problems, the converging points of view represent the notion that "environmental problems and . . . material problems have common roots."[18]

When analyzing the convergence of these groups, it is important to note the relative emphasis that environmental and social justice organizations give to "instrumental" versus "expressive" activities.[19] Environmental organizations have relied heavily on environmentally oriented expressive activities (outdoor recreation, field trips, social functions, etc.), while the social justice movements have made greater use of goal-oriented instrumental activities (protest demonstrations, mass rallies, sit-ins, boycotts, etc.) in their effort to produce social change.[20]

The push for environmental equity in the black community has much in common with the development of the modern civil rights movement that began in the South. That is, protest against discrimination has evolved from "organizing efforts of activists functioning through a well-developed indigenous base."[21] Indigenous black institutions, organizations, leaders, and networks are coming together against polluting industries and discriminatory environmental policies. This book addresses this new uniting of blacks against institutional barriers of racism and classism.

Race Versus Class in Spatial Location

Social scientists agree that a multidimensional web of factors operate in sorting out stratification hierarchies. These factors include occupation, education, value of dwellings, source and amount of income, type of dwelling structures, government and private industry policies, and racial and ethnic makeup of residents.[22] Unfortunately, American society has not reached a color-blind state. What role does race play in sorting out land uses? Race continues to be a potent variable in explaining the spatial layout of urban areas, including housing patterns, street and highway configurations, commercial development, and industrial facility siting.

Houston, Texas, the nation's fourth largest city, is a classic example of an area where race has played an integral part in land-use outcomes and municipal service delivery.[23] As late as 1982, there were neighborhoods in Houston that still did not have paved streets, gas and sewer connections, running water, regular garbage service, and street markers. Black and Hispanic neighborhoods were far more likely to have service deficiencies than their white counterparts. One of the neighborhoods (Bordersville) was part of the land annexed for the bustling Houston Intercontinental Airport. Another area, Riceville, was a stable black community located in the city's sprawling southwest corridor, a mostly white sector that accounted for nearly one-half of Houston's housing construction in the 1970s.

The city's breakneck annexation policy stretched municipal services thin. Newly annexed unincorporated areas, composed of mostly whites, often gained at the expense of older minority areas. How does one explain the service disparities in this modern Sunbelt city? After studying the Houston phenomenon for nearly a decade, I have failed to turn up a single case of a white neighborhood (low- or middle-income) in the city that was systematically denied basic municipal services. The significance of race may have declined, but racism has not disappeared when it comes to allocating scarce resources.

Do middle-income blacks have the same mobility options that are available to their white counterparts? The answer to this question is no. Blacks have made tremendous economic and political gains in the past three decades with the passage of equal opportunity initiatives at the federal level. Despite legislation, court orders, and federal mandates, institutional racism and discrimination continue to influence the quality of life in many of the nation's black communities.[24]

The differential residential amenities and land uses assigned to black and white residential areas cannot be explained by class alone. For example, poor whites and poor blacks do not have the same opportunities to "vote with their feet." Racial barriers to education, employment, and housing reduce mobility options available to the black underclass and the black middleclass.[25]

Housing is a classic example of this persistent problem. Residential options available to blacks have been shaped largely by (1) federal housing policies, (2) institutional and individual discrimination in housing markets, (3) geographic changes that have taken place in the nation's urban centers, and (4) limited incomes. Federal policies, for example, played a key role in the development of spatially differentiated metropolitan areas where blacks and other visible minorities are segregated from whites, and the poor from the more afffluent citizens.[26] Government housing policies fueled the white exodus to the suburbs and accelerated the abandonment of central cities. Federal tax dollars funded the construction of freeway and interstate highway systems. Many of these construction projects cut paths through minority neighborhoods, physically isolated residents from their institutions, and disrupted once-stable communities. The federal government is the "proximate and essential cause of urban apartheid" in the United States.[27] The result of the nation's apartheid-type policies has been limited mobility, reduced housing options and residential packages, and decreased environmental choices for black households.[28]

Environmental degradation takes an especially heavy toll on inner-city neighborhoods because the "poor or nearpoor are the ones most vulnerable to the assaults of air and water pollution, and the stress and tension of noise and squalor."[ 29] A high correlation has been discovered between characteristics associated with disadvantage (i.e., poverty, occupations below management and professional levels, low rent, and a high concentration of black residents [due to residential segregation and discriminatory housing practices]) and poor air quality.[30] Individuals that are in close proximity to health-threatening problems (i.e., industrial pollution, congestion, and busy freeways) are living in endangered environs. The price that these individuals pay is in the form of higher risks of emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and other chronic pulmonary diseases.[31]

Blacks and other economically disadvantaged groups are often concentrated in areas that expose them to high levels of toxic pollution: namely, urban industrial communities with elevated air and water pollution problems or rural areas with high levels of exposure to farm pesticides. Kruvant described these groups as victims:

Disadvantaged people are largely victims of middle- and upperclass pollution because they usually live closest to the sources of pollution--power plants, industrial installations, and in central cities where vehicle traffic is heaviest. Usually they have no choice. Discrimination created the situation, and those with wealth and influence have political power to keep polluting facilities away from their homes. Living in poverty areas is bad enough. High pollution makes it worse.[32]

Air pollution in inner-city neighborhoods can be up to five times greater than in suburban areas. Urban areas, in general, have "dirtier air and drinking water, more wastewater and solidwaste problems, and greater exposure to lead and other heavy metals than nonurban areas."[33] The difference between the environmental quality of inner-city and suburban areas was summarized by Blum:

Suburbanites are exposed to less than half of the environmental health hazards inner-city residents face.... The inner-city poor---white, yellow, brown, and black---suffer to an alarming degree from what are euphemistically known as "diseases of adaptation." These are not health adaptations, but diseases and chronic conditions from living with bad air, polluted water, and continued stress.[34]

All Americans, white or black, rich or poor, are entitled to equal protection under the law. Just as this is true for such areas as education, employment, and housing, it also applies to one's physical environment. Environmental discrimination is a fact of life. Here, environmental discrimination is defined as disparate treatment of a group or community based on race, class, or some other distinguishing characteristic. The struggle for social justice by black Americans has been and continues to be rooted in white racism. White racism is a factor in the impoverishment of black communities and has made it easier for black residential areas to become the dumping grounds for all types of health-threatening toxins and industrial pollution.

Government and private industry in general have followed the "path of least resistance" in addressing externalities as pollution discharges, waste disposal, and nonresidential activities that may pose a health threat to nearby communities.[35] Middle and upper-class households can often shut out the fumes, noise, and odors with their air conditioning, dispose of their garbage to keep out the rats and roaches, and buy bottled water for drinking.[36] Many lower-income households (black or white) cannot afford such "luxury" items; they are subsequently forced to adapt to a lower-quality physical environment.

Minority and low-income residential areas (and their inhabitants) are often adversely affected by unregulated growth, ineffective regulation of industrial toxins, and public policy decisions authorizing locally unwanted land uses that favor those with political and economic clout.[37] Zoning is probably the most widely applied mechanism to regulate land use in the United States. Externalities such as pollution discharges to the air and water, noise, vibrations, and aesthetic problems are often segregated from residential areas for the "public good." Negative effects of nonresidential activities generally decrease with distance from the source. Land-use zoning, thus, is designed as a "protectionist device" to insure a "place for everything and everything in its place."[38] Zoning is ultimately intended to influence and shape land use in accordance with long-range local needs.

Zoning, deed restrictions, and other protectionist land-use mechanisms have failed to effectively protect minority communities, especially low-income minority communities. Logan and Molotch, in their book Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, contend that the various social classes, with or without land-use controls, are "unequally able to protect their environmental interests."[39] In their quest for quality neighborhoods, individuals often find themselves competing for desirable neighborhood amenities (i.e., good schools, police and fire protection, quality health care, and parks and recreational facilities) and resisting negative characteristics (i.e., landfills, polluting industries, freeways, public housing projects, drugtreatment facilities, halfway houses, etc.).

Zoning is not a panacea for land-use planning or for achieving long-range development goals. Implementation of zoning ordinances and land-use plans has a political, economic, and racial dimension. Competition often results between special interest groups (i.e., racial and ethnic minorities, organized civic clubs, neighborhood associations, developers, environmentalists, etc.) for advantageous land use. In many instances, exclusionary zoning, discriminatory housing practices by rental agents, brokers, and lending institutions, and disparate facility siting decisions have contributed to and maintained racially segregated residential areas of unequal quality.[40] These practices persist in spite of years of government intervention.

Why has this happened and what have blacks done to resist these practices? In order to understand the causes of the environmental dilemma that many black and low-income communities find themselves in, the theoretical foundation of environmentalism needs to be explored.

The Theoretical Basis of Environmental Conflict

Environmentalism in the United States grew out of the progressive conservation movement that began in the 1890s. The modern environmental movement, however, has its roots in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the late 1960s.[41] The more radical student activists splintered off from the civil rights and antiwar movements to form the core of the environmental movement in the early 1970s. The student environmental activists affected by the 1970 Earth Day enthusiasm in colleges and universities across the nation had hopes of bringing environmental reforms to the urban poor. They saw their role as environmental advocates for the poor since the poor had not taken action on their own.[42] They were, however, met with resistance and suspicion. Poor and minority residents saw environmentalism as a disguise for oppression and as another "elitist" movement.[43]

Environmental elitism has been grouped into three categories: (1) compositional elitism implies that environmentalists come from privileged class strata, (2) ideological elitism implies that environmental reforms are a subterfuge for distributing the benefits to environmentalists and costs to nonenvironmentalists, and (3) impact elitism implies that environmental reforms have regressive distributional impacts.[44]

Impact elitism has been the major sore point between environmentalists and advocates for social justice who see some reform proposals creating, exacerbating, and sustaining social inequities. Conflict centered largely on the "jobs versus environment" argument. Imbedded in this argument are three competing advocacy groups (1) environmentalists are concerned about leisure and recreation, wildlife and wilderness preservation, resource conservation, pollution abatement, and industry regulation, (2) social justice advocates major concerns include basic civil rights, social equity, expanded opportunity, economic mobility, and institutional discrimination, and (3) economic boosters have as their chief concerns maximizing profits, industrial expansion, economic stability, laissez-faire operation, and deregulation.

Economic boosters and pro-growth advocates convinced minority leaders that environmental regulations were bad for business, even when locational decisions had adverse impacts on the less advantaged. Pro-growth advocates used a number of strategies to advance their goals, including public relations campaigns, lobbying public officials, evoking police powers of government, paying off or co-opting dissidents, and granting small concessions when plans could be modified.[45] Environmental reform proposals were presented as prescriptions for plant closures, layoffs, and economic dislocation. Kazis and Grossman referred to this practice as "job blackmail." They insisted that by "threatening their employees with a 'choice' between their jobs and their health, employers seek to make the public believe there are no alternatives to 'business as usual.'"[46]

Pro-growth advocates have claimed the workplace is an arena in which unavoidable trade-offs must be made between jobs and hazards: If workers want to keep their jobs, they must work under conditions that may be hazardous to them, their families, and their community. Black workers are especially vulnerable to job blackmail because of the threat of unemployment and their concentration in certain types of occupations. The black workforce remains overrepresented in low-paying, low-skill, highrisk blue collar and service occupations where there is a more than an adequate supply of replacement labor. Black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts. Fear of unemployment acts as a potent incentive for many blacks to stay in and accept jobs they know are health threatening.

There is inherent conflict between the interests of capital and of labor. Employers have the power to move jobs (and sometimes hazards) as they wish. For example, firms may choose to move their operations from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Sunbelt, or they may move the jobs to Third World countries where labor is cheaper and there are fewer health and environmental regulations. Moreover, labor unions may feel it necessary to scale down their demands for improved work safety conditions in a depressed economy for fear of layoffs, plant closings, or relocation of industries (e.g., moving to right-to-work states that proliferate in the South). The conflicts, fears, and anxieties manifested by workers are usually built on the false assumption that environmental regulations are automatically linked to job loss.

The offer of a job (any job) to an unemployed worker appears to have served a more immediate need than the promise of a clean environment. There is evidence that new jobs have been created as a direct result of environmental reforms.[47] Who got these new jobs? The newly created jobs are often taken by people who already have jobs or by migrants who possess skills greater than the indigenous workforce. More often than not, "newcomers intervene between the jobs and the local residents, especially the disadvantaged."[48]

Minority residents can point to a steady stream of industrial jobs leaving their communities. Moreover, social justice advocates take note of the miserable track record that environmentalists and preservationists have on improving environmental quality in the nation's racially segregated inner cities and hazardous industrial workplaces, and on providing housing for low income groups. Decent and affordable housing, for example, is a top environmental problem for inner-city blacks. On the other hand, environmentalists' continued emphasis on wilderness and wildlife preservation appeal to a population that can afford leisure time and travel to these distant locations. This does not mean that poor people and people of color are not interested in leisure or outdoor activities. Many wilderness areas and national parks remain inaccessible to the typical inner-city resident because of inadequate transportation. Physical isolation, thus, serves as a major impediment to black activism in the mainstream conservation and resource management activities.

Translating Concern into Action

A considerable body of literature shows that the socioeconomic makeup of environmental activists and the environmentally concerned are markedly different. Activists tend to be drawn disproportionately from the upper middle class, while environmentally concerned individuals tend to come from all socioeconomic strata.[49] Since our focus is on activism rather than concern, social participation models seem most appropriate in explaining the varying levels of environmental activity within the black community. Two of the most prevalent perspectives on social participation rates are expressed in the "social psychological" and "resource mobilization" models.

The basic assumption of the social psychological perspective is that personal characteristics, such as deprivation, status inconsistencies, grievances, and alienation, are useful in explaining motivation for social movement involvement.[50] The resource mobilization perspective, on the other hand, places greater confidence in structural conditions that make individual participation more accessible, including economic resources, organization affiliation, leaders, communication networks, and mastery skills gained through wearing "multiple hats."[51] Given the issues that have drawn minorities into the environmental movement (e.g., social justice and equity issues) and the indigenous black institutions that have initiated and sustained the movement, an integrated model is used to explain the emergence of environmentalism in black communities.[52] That is, both psychological factors (e.g., environmental quality rating, deprivation and sense of inequitable treatment, personal efficacy, and acceptance of trade-offs) as well as structural factors (e.g., social class and organization affiliation) are important predictors of environmental activism that is emerging in black communities.

There is no single agenda or integrated political philosophy in the hundreds of environmental organizations found in the nation. The type of issues that environmental organizations choose can greatly influence the type of constituents they attract.[53] The issues that are most likely to attract the interests of black community residents are those that have been couched in a civil rights or equity framework (see Table 1.1). They include those that (1) focus on inequality and distributional impacts, (2) endorse the "politics of equity" and direct action, (3) appeal to urban mobilized groups, (4) advocate safeguards against environmental blackmail with a strong pro-development stance, and (5) are ideologically aligned with policies that favor social and political "underdogs."

Mainstream environmental organizations, including the "classic" and "mature" groups, have had a great deal of influence in shaping the nation's environmental policy. Classic environmentalism continues to have a heavy emphasis on preservation and outdoor recreation, while mature environmentalism is busy in the area of "tightening regulations, seeking adequate funding for agencies, occasionally focusing on compliance with existing statutes through court action, and opposing corporate efforts to repeal environmental legislation or weaken standards."[54] These organizations, however, have not had a great deal of success in attracting working-class persons, the large black population in the nation's inner cities, and the rural poor. Many of these individuals do not see the mainstream environmental movement as a vehicle that is championing the causes of the "little man," the "underdog," or the "oppressed."[55]

Recently emerged grassroots environmental groups, some of which are affiliated with mainstream environmental organizations, have begun to bridge the class and ideological gap between core environmentalists (e.g., the Sierra Club) and grassroots organizations (e.g., local activist groups in southeast Louisiana). In some cases, these groups mirror their larger counterparts at the national level in terms of problems and issues selected, membership, ideological alignment, and tactics. Grassroots groups often are organized around area-specific and single-issue problems. They are, however, more inclusive than mainstream environmental organizations in that they focus primarily on local problems. Grassroots environmental organizations, however, may or may not choose to focus on equity, distributional impacts, and economic-environmental trade-off issues. These groups do appeal to some black community residents, especially those who have been active in other confrontational protest activities.

Environmental groups in the black community quite often emerge out of established social action organizations. For example, black leadership has deep roots in the black church and other voluntary associations. These black institutions usually have a track record built on opposition to social injustice and racial discrimination. Many black community residents are affiliated with civic clubs, neighborhood associations, community improvement groups, and an array of antipoverty and antidiscrimination organizations. The infrastructure, thus, is already in place for the emergence of a sustained environmental equity movement in the black community. Black sociologist Aldon Morris contends that the black community "possesses (1) certain basic resources, (2) social activists with strong ties to massbased indigenous institutions, and (3) tactics and strategies that can be effectively employed against a system of domination."[56]

Social action groups that take on environmental issues as part of their agenda are open on the political Left. They broaden their base of support and sphere of influence by incorporating environmental equity issues as agenda items that favor the disenfranchised. The push for environmental equity is an extension of the civil rights movement, a movement in which direct confrontation and the politics of protest have been real weapons. In short, social action environmental organizations retain much of their civil rights flavor.

Other environmental groups that have appealed to black community residents grew out of coalitions between environmentalists (mainstream and grassroots), social action advocates, and organized labor.[57] These somewhat fragile coalitions operate from the position that social justice and environmental quality are compatible goals. Although these groups are beginning to formulate agendas for action, mistrust still persists as a limiting factor. These groups are often biracial with membership cutting across class and geographic boundaries. There is a down side to these types of coalition groups. For example, compositional factors may engender less group solidarity and sense of "control" among black members, compared to the indigenous social action or grassroots environmental groups where blacks are in the majority and make the decisions. The question of "who is calling the shots" is ever present.

Environmentalists, thus, have had a difficult task convincing blacks and the poor that they are on their side. Mistrust is engendered among economically and politically oppressed groups in this country when they see environmental reforms being used to direct social and economic resources away from problems of the poor toward priorities of the affluent. For example, tighter government regulations and public opposition to disposal facility siting have opened up the Third World as the new dumping ground for this nation's toxic wastes. Few of these poor countries have laws or the infrastructure to handle the wastes from the United States and other Western industrialized nations.[58] Blacks and other ethnic minorities in this country also see their communities being inundated with all types of toxics. This has been especially the case for the southern United States (one of the most underdeveloped regions of the nation) where more than one-half of all blacks live.

Environmentalism and Civil Rights

The civil rights movement has its roots in the southern United States. Southern racism deprived blacks of "political rights, economic opportunity, social justice, and human dignity."[59] The new environmental equity movement also is centered in the South, a region where marked ecological disparities exist between black and white communities.[60] The 1980s have seen the emergence of a small cadre of blacks who see environmental discrimination as a civil rights issue. A fragile alliance has been forged between organized labor, blacks, and environmental groups as exhibited by the 1983 Urban Environment Conference workshops held in New Orleans.[61] Environmental and civil rights issues were presented as compatible agenda items by the conference organizers. Environmental protection and social justice are not necessarily incompatible goals.[62]

The Commission for Racial Justice's 1987 study Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States is a clear indication that environmental concerns have reached the civil rights agenda. Reverend Ben Chavis, the commission's executive director, stated:

Race is a major factor related to the presence of hazardous wastes in residential communities throughout the United States. As a national church-based civil rights agency, we believe that time has come for all church and civil rights organizations to take this issue seriously. We realize that involvement in this type of research is a departure from our traditional protest methodology. However, if we are to advance our struggle in the future, it will depend largely on the availability of timely and reliable information.[63]

A growing number of grassroots organizations and their leaders have begun to incorporate more problem-focused coping strategies (e.g. protests, neighborhood demonstrations, picketing, political pressure, litigation, etc.) to reduce and eliminate environmental stressors. The national black political leadership has demonstrated a willingness to take a strong pro-environment stance. The League of Conservation Voters, for example, assigned the Congressional Black Caucus high marks for having one of the best pro-environment voting records.[64]

Many black communities, however, still do not have the organization, financial resources, or personnel to mount and sustain effective long-term challenges to such unpopular facilities as municipal and hazardous-waste landfills, toxic waste dumps, incinerators, and industrial plants that may pose a threat to their health and safety. Some battles are being waged on "shoestring" budgets. The problem is complicated by the fact that blacks in many cases must go outside their community to find experts on environmental issues. Lawyers, toxicologists, hydrologists, and environmental engineers in today's market are not cheap.

Institutional racism continues to affect policy decisions related to the enforcement of environmental regulations. Slowly, blacks, lower-income groups, and working-class persons are awakening to the dangers of living in a polluted environment. They are beginning to file and win lawsuits challenging governments and private industry that would turn their communities into the dumping grounds for all type of unwanted substances and activities. Whether it is a matter of deciding where a municipal landfill or hazardous-waste facility will be located, or getting a local chemical plant to develop better emergency notification. or trying to secure federal assistance to clean up an area that has already been contaminated by health-threatening chemicals. it is apparent that blacks and other minority groups must become more involved in environmental issues if they want to live healthier lives.

Black communities, mostly in the South, are beginning to initiate action (protests, demonstrations, picketing, political pressure, litigation, and other forms of direct action) against industries and governmental agencies that have targeted their neighborhoods for nonresidential uses including municipal garbage. hazardous wastes and polluting industries. The environmental "time bombs" that are ticking away in these communities are not high on the agendas of mainstream environmentalists nor have they received much attention from mainstream civil rights advocates. Moreover, polluted black communities have received little national media coverage or remedial action from governmental agencies charged with cleanup of health-threatening pollution problems. The time is long overdue for placing the toxics and minority health concerns (including stress induced from living in contaminated communities) on the agenda of federal and state environmental protection and regulatory agencies. The Commission for Racial Justice's Toxic Wastes and Race has at least started government officials, academicians, and grassroots activists talking about environmental problems that disproportionately affect minority communities.

Nevertheless, the "Black Love Canals" exist and many go unnoticed. A case in point is the contamination of Triana, a small, all-black town in northern Alabama. Barbara Reynolds in National Wildlife described Triana as the "unhealthiest town in America."[65] Residents of this rural town of about 1,000 people were tested by the Center for Disease Control and were found to be contaminated with the pesticide DDT and the highly toxic industrial chemical PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl). Some of the residents were contaminated with the highest levels of DDT ever recorded. The source of the PCBs was not determined. However, the DDT was produced at nearby Redstone Arsenal Army missile base from 1947 to 1971 by Olin Chemical Company. DDT was banned in the United States in 1971. The manufacturing plant was torn down and over 4,000 tons of DDT residue remained buried in the area and eventually worked its way into Indian Creek, a popular fishing place of the Triana residents. Indian Creek is a tributary of the Tennessee River and is under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

While the elevated level of contamination of these black residents was documented as early as 1978, actions on the part of the U.S. Army or the federal government did not materialize. Clyde Foster, then mayor of Triana, spoke to this lack of concern and inaction on the part of government:

I did not want a confrontation. I just wanted the scientific investigation to speak for itself Why did the TVA suggest Triana be studied if DDT was not at all dangerous? How can it kill insects, fish, and birds and not be potentially harmful to people? I knew the stuff was real stable, that it stays in a body for years. Who knows what effects massive doses could have over a long period of time? The TVA has known about the presence of DDT in the fish of Indian Creek for years, and I found later that the Army checked in 1977 and found a fish with one hundred times the safe DDT level. We received the TVA analysis of the fish from our freezers. Our fish had even higher DDT levels that those they had first tested.... Many of us eat its [Indian Creek's] fish every day. Already there is a hardship among the very poor people who customarily derive sustenance from the river. Our whole community is upset. We needed some help.[66]

It was not until Mayor Foster filed a class-action lawsuit in 1980 against Olin Chemical Company that the problems of these citizens were taken seriously.[67] After many delays and attempts to co-opt the local citizens, the lawsuit was settled out of court in 1983 for $25 million. The settlement agreement had three main points. Olin Chemical Company agreed to (1) clean up residual chemicals, (2) set aside $5 million to pay for longterm medical surveillance and health care of Triana residents, and (3) pay "cash-in-pocket" settlements to each resident. The legal claim against the federal government was withdrawn in order to make the settlement with Olin. The tragedy at Triana is not an isolated incident. There are numerous other cases of poor, black, and powerless communities that are victimized and ignored when it comes to enforcing environmental quality standards equitably. These disparities form the basis for this study and the environmental equity movement.

A Note on the Research Approach

This study examines how community attitudes and socioeconomic characteristics influence activism and mobilization strategies of black residents who are confronted with the threat of environmental stressors. The research on which this study is based was carried out in 1987 and 1988. Initial contact, however, had been made with local opinion leaders in several of the study communities as far back as 1979, after the author had served as a consultant, adviser, workshop lecturer, and guest speaker at a number of community events. A good rapport had been built up over several years with key community actors. This familiarity with the communities greatly enhanced the data-gathering phase of the project. Several data sources were used in order to develop an understanding of the complexities of black environmental mobilization. Three data sources were used: (1) government documents and archival records, (2) in-depth interviews with local opinion leaders, and (3) household surveys.

Community Case Studies

Descriptive case studies were developed on each of the five communities selected for investigation. This analysis included demographic and economic profiles of the population as well as the socio-historical context in which the environmental disputes arose. Local black leaders and community organizations were identified through the reputational approach (i.e., asking a group of influentials "who were the most important leaders on the local environmental problem, excluding themselves") and newspaper articles, editorials, and feature stories. In-depth interviews (unstructured) were conducted with fifteen black opinion leaders. These interviews were used to supplement archival documents and the more structured interviews that were conducted in the household surveys.

Newspaper article clip files from local public libraries were especially helpful in tracking local problems, including their discovery, local reactions (citizens, government, and industry), and government and industry responses. The analysis also chronicled the efforts made by local citizen groups to reduce the threats, including political pressure, court action, disruptive and violent action, and indirect methods.

Household Surveys

The sample consisted of 120 black household heads randomly selected from each of the five study communities (600 households in all). A total of 523 household interviews were completed, an 87 percent response rate. Data were collected in the spring and summer of 1988. Interviewers were recruited from local colleges and universities and trained by the author. They were instructed on how to gain entry, establish rapport, and handle common problems that arise in interview surveys. The training of the student interviewers also involved practicing roleplaying as both interviewer and respondent to sensitize them to the interview process. The student-interviewers were supervised by the author and a faculty representative from the local university, with the exception of Emelle, where the author supervised the interviewing because there was not a historically black college or university in the area. Student-interviewers were used from Texas Southern University (Houston), Bishop College (Dallas), Southern University (Baton Rouge), West Virginia State College (Institute), and Livingston University (Livingston, Alabama).

Interviewers were assigned a randomly generated list of addresses and area maps of the sampling subareas. The small number of nonblacks who entered the sampling frame were not interviewed. Because this is a study of black mobilization, only black household heads were interviewed. Each respondent was given a letter that explained the purpose of the survey and contained information on where the author and the local faculty supervisor could be contacted if there were questions. As a precautionary measure, local police commanders from the neighborhood districts were informed of the survey and the time period that interviewers would be in the field. This practice has proven to be a useful strategy in urban communities where crime and fear of victimization may deter people from cooperating (opening their doors) in face-to-face surveys. Two followup visits were made to the residence before contacting the next household on the list.

The interview schedule was developed and pre-tested in a Houston neighborhood that was similar to the one used in this study. All five case study communities received the same survey instrument. In addition to basic demographic data, information was gathered on residents' rating of environmental pollution, environmental deprivation, and economic trade-offs. We were also interested in assessing social participation and environmental activism rates of the respondents.

After a systematic review of the related literature and studies on environmentalism (locational conflict, distributive impacts, social justice and equity, and mobilization factors), six research questions were formulated. They were:

1. What factors are important in explaining black mobilization on environmental issues?

2. What types of dispute-handling techniques and mechanisms do black community residents use to resolve environmental conflicts?

3. Are the strategies used in the civil rights movement readily adaptable to an environmental equity movement?

4. Do indigenous black institutions and organizations possess the leadership, resources, and communication infrastructure to plan, initiate, and sustain an environmental equity protest movement?

5. What role do outside elites play in environmental protest movements in black communities?

6. How effective are economic incentives, compensation, and other monetary inducements in mitigating environmental disputes and locational conflict in black communities?

The six research questions form the basis of the analysis and provide the foundation on which the investigation rests. The descriptive case histories provide basic socio-demographic profiles of the communities and background material on the local environmental disputes and remedial actions that were taken by citizens, government, and private industry. The intent of this analysis is not to assign blame for a specific environmental problem. The aim is to provide insights into the economic and political dynamics of environmental decision making and impacts on minority communities.

The next chapter outlines the social, geopolitical, and ecological changes that have fueled the "growth machine" in the southern region of the United States. While the environmental problems and concerns discussed in our analysis are not unique to the South, the region provided an ideal laboratory for studying the growth-environment dilemma. More important, if black environmental mobilization is the focus, as was the case in this inquiry, one should go to the source. The southern United States appears to be the center of the black environmental equity movement.

NOTES Chapter One

1. See Frederick R. Buttel and William L. Flinn, "Social Class and Mass Environmental Beliefs: A Reconsideration," Environment and Behavior 10 (September 1978): 433-450; Kenneth M. Bachrach and Alex J. Zautra, "Coping with Community Stress: The Threat of a Hazardous Waste Landfill," Journal of Health and Social Behavior 26 (June 1985): 127-141; Paul Mohai, "Public Concern and Elite Involvement in Environmental-Conservation Issues," Social Science Quarterly 66 (December 1985): 820-838.

2. Denton E. Morrison, "The Soft Cutting Edge of Environmentalism: Why and How the Appropriate Technology Notion Is Changing the Movement," Natural Resources Journal 20 (April 1980): 275-298.

3. Allan Schnaiberg, The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 366-377.

4. See Morris E. Davis, "The Impact of Workplace Health and Safety on Black Workers: Assessment and Prognosis," Labor Studies Journal 4 (Spring 1981): 29-40; Richard Kazis and Richard Grossman, Fear at Work: Job Blackmail, Labor, and the Environment (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1983), Chapter 1; W. J. Kruvant, "People, Energy, and Pollution," in Dorothy K. Newman and Dawn Day, eds., The American Energy Consumer (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1975), pp. 125-167; Robert D. Bullard, "Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community," Sociological Inquiry 53 (Spring 1983): 273-288; Robert D. Bullard, "Endangered Environs: The Price of Unplanned Growth in Boomtown Houston," California Sociologist 7 (Summer 1984): 85-101; Robert D. Bullard and Beverly H. Wright, "Dumping Grounds in a Sunbelt City," Urban Resources 2 (Winter 1985): 37-39.

5. James E. Blackwell, The Black Community: Diversity and Unity (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), p. xiii.

6. Richard E. Lazarus and Raymond Launier, "Stress-Related Transactions Between Persons and Environment," in Lawrence A. Pervin and Michael Lewis, eds., Perspectives in International Psychology (New York: Plenum, 1978), pp. 297-327; Bachrach and Zautra, "Coping with Community Stress," pp. 127-129.

7. See Anthony M. Orum, "On Participation in Political Movements," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 10 (April/June 1974): 181-207; Daniel L. Collins, Andrew Baum, and Jerome E. Singer, "Coping with Chronic Stress at Three Mile Island: Psychological and Biological Evidence," Health Psychology 2 (1983): 149-166; Mohai, "Public Concern and Elite Involvement," p. 832.

8. Robert D. Bullard and Beverly H. Wright, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity: Emergent Trends in the Black Community," Mid-American Review of Sociology 12 (Winter 1987): 21-37.

9. Aldon D. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change (New York: Free Press, 1984), p. x.

10. See Robert D. Bullard and Beverly H. Wright, "Blacks and the Environment," Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 14 (Summer 1987): 165-184; Bullard, "Solid Waste Sites and the Black Houston Community," pp. 273-288; Bullard,"Endangered Environs," pp. 84-102.

11. Riley E. Dunlap, "Public Opinion on the Environment in the Reagan Era: Polls, Pollution, and Politics Revisited," Environment 29 (July/August 1987): 6-11, 32-37

12. Brian J.L. Berry, ed., The Social Burden of Environmental Pollulion: A Comparative Metropolitan Data Source (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1977); Sam Love,"Ecology and Social Justice: Is There a Conflict," Environmental Action 4 (1972): 3-6; Julian McCaull, "Discriminatory Air Pollution: If the Poor Don't Breathe," Environment 19 (March 1976): 26-32; Vernon Jordon, "Sins of Omission," Environmental Action 11 (April 1980): 26-30.

13. Denton E. Morrison, "How and Why Environmental Consciousness Has Trickled Down," in Allan Schnaiberg, Nicholas Watts, and Klaus Zimmermann, eds., Distributional Conflict in Environnental-Resource Policy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986), pp. 187-220.

14. Robert D. Bullard and Beverly H. Wright, "The Politics of Pollution: Implications for the Black Community," Phylon 47 (March 1986): 71-78.

15. Bullard and Wright, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity," p. 28.

16. Richard P. Gale, "The Environmental Movement and the Left: Antagonists or Allies?" Sociological Inquiry 53 (Spring 1983): 179199.

17. Craig R. Humphrey and Frederick R. Buttel, Environment, Energy, and Society (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1982), p. 253.

18. Ibid.

19. Arthur P. Jacoby and Nicholas Babchuk, "Instrumental Versus Expressive Voluntary Associations," Sociology and Social Research 47 (1973): 461-471.

20. Gale, "The Environmental Movement and the Left," p. 191.

21. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, p. xii.

22. Charles V. Willie, The Caste and Class Controversy (Bayside, N.Y.: General Hall, Inc., 1979), pp. 43-44; also Robert D. Bullard, ed., In Search of the New South: The Black Urban Experience in the 1970s and 1980s (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1989).

23. See Robert D. Bullard, Invisible Houston: The Black Experience in Boom and Bust (College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1987), pp. 14-31.

24. Robert D. Bullard, "Blacks and the American Dream of Housing," in Jamshid A. Momeni, ed., Race, Ethnicity, and Minority Housing in the United States (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986), pp. 53-63; Bullard and Wright, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity," pp. 21-37.

25. Robert L. Lineberry, Equity and Urban Policy: The Distribution of Municipal Public Services (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977), pp. 174-175.

26. Karl Taeuber and Alma K. Taeuber, Negroes in Cities: Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Change (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965); Karl Taeuber, "Racial Segregation: The Persisting Dilemma," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 442 (November 1978): 87-96; Karl Taeuber, "Racial Residential Segregation, 28 Cities, 1970-1980," CDE Working Paper, University of Wisconsin, Madison (March 1983), p. 3: Robert D. Bullard, "The Black Family: Housing Alternatives in the 80s," Journal of Black Studles 14 (Spring 1984): 341-351.

27. Larry Ford and Ernst Griffin, "The Ghettoization of Paradise," Geographical Review 69 (April 1979): 140-158; J. A. Kushner, Apartheid in America: An Historical and Legal Analysis of Contemporary Racial Segregation in the United States (Arlington, Va.: Carrolton Press, Inc., 1980), p. 130.

28. Robert P. Burden, "The Forgotten Environment," in Lawrence E. Hinkle and William C. Loring, eds., The Effects of the Man-Made Environment on Health and Behavior (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 249.

29. Daniel Zwerdling, "Poverty and Pollution," Progressive 37 (January 1973): 25-29.

30. Kruvant, "People, Energy, and Pollution," pp. 125-167.

31. Douglas Lee and H. K. Lee, "Conclusions and Reservations," in Douglas Lee, ed., Environmental Factors in Respiratory Disease (New York: Academic Press, 1972), pp. 250-251; Ronald Brownstein, "The Toxic Tragedy," in Ralph Nader, Ronald Brownstein, and John Richard, eds., Who's Poisoning America: Corporate Polluters and Their Victims in the Chemical Age (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1982), pp. 1-52.

32. Kruvant, "People, Energy, and Pollution," p. 166.

33. Kazis and Grossman, Fear at Work, p. 48.

34. Barbara Blum, Cities: An Environmental Wilderness (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, 1978), p. 3.

35. Bullard and Wright, "Blacks and the Environment," pp. 170-171.

36. Zwerdling, "Poverty and Pollution," p. 27; Bullard and Wright, "The Politics of Pollution," pp. 71-78.

37. Bullard and Wright, "Blacks and the Environment," pp. 168-171; Bullard, "Endangered Environs," pp. 85-86.

38. See Constance Perrin, Everything in Its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977).

39. John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 158.

40. See Harvey L. Molotch, "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place," American Journal of Sociology 82 (1976): 309-330; John R. Logan, "Growth, Politics and Stratification of Places." American Journal of Sociology 84 (1978): 404-416; Ann B. Shlay and Peter Rossi, "Keeping up the Neighborhood: Estimating the Effect of Zoning," American Sociology Review 46 (December 1981): 703-719; Bullard and Wright, "Blacks and the Environment," pp. 168-171.

41. Humphrey and Buttel, Environment, Energy, and Society, pp. 11-136; Gale, "The Environmental Movement and the Left," pp. 179-199.

42. Samuel P. Hays, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 269.

43. David L. Sills, "The Environmental Movement and Its Critics," Human Ecology 13 (1975): 1-41; Morrison, "The Soft Cutting Edge of Environmentalism," pp. 275-298; Allan Schnaiberg, "Redistributive Goals Versus Distributive Politics: Social Equity Limits in Environmentalism and Appropriate Technology Movements," Sociological Inquiry 53 (Spring 1983): 200-219.

44. Denton E. Morrison and Riley E. Dunlap, "Environmentalism and Elitism: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis," Environmental Management 10 (1986): 581-589.

45. Logan and Molotch, Urban Fortunes, pp. 50-98.

46. Kazis and Grossman, Fear at Work, p. 37.

47. Alan S. Miller, "Toward an Environment/Labor Coalition," Environment 22 (June 1980): 32-39.

48. See Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison, The Deindustrialization of America (New York: Basic Books, 1982), p. 90.

49. Buttel and Flinn, "Social Class and Mass Environmental Beliefs," pp. 433-450; Robert Cameron Mitchell, "Silent Spring/ Solid Majorities," Public Opinion 2 (August/September 1979): 16-20; Robert Cameron Mitchell, "Public Opinion and Environmental Politics," in N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft, eds., Environmental Policy in the 1980's: Reagan's New Agenda (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984), pp. 51-73; Mohai, "Public Concern and Elite Involvement." p. 821; Dorceta E. Taylor, "Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern and Action Gap Between Blacks and Whites," Environment and Behavior 21 (March 1989): 175-205.

50. See Ron E. Roberts and Robert Marsh Kloss, Social Movements: Between the Balcony and the Barricade, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1979); James L. Wood and Maurice Jackson, eds., Social Movements: Development, Participation and Dynamics (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1982).

51. For a detailed discussion of the resource mobilization model, see Anthony Oberschall, Social Conflict and Social Movement (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); John D. McCarthy and Mayer Zald, The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalism and Resource Mobilization (Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1979); William Gamson, The Study of Social Protest (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1975); Charles Tilly, From Mobilization to Revolution (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978); Craig J. Jenkins, "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements," Annual Review of Sociology 9 (1983): 27-53.

52. Edward J. Walsh and Rex Warland, "Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident: Activists and FreeRiders in the TMI Area," American Sociological Review 48 (December 1983): 764-780; Mohai, "Public Concern and Elite Involvement," pp. 822-823.

53. The discussion of issues that are likely to attract blacks to the environmental movement was adapted from Gale, "The Environmental Movement and the Left," pp. 182-186.

54. Ibid., p. 184.

55. See Ronald A. Taylor, "Do Environmentalists Care About Poor People?" U.S. News and World Report 96 (April 2, 1982): 51-55; Bullard, "Endangered Environs," p. 98; Bullard and Wright, "The Politics of Pollution," pp. 71-78.

56. Morris, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, p. 282.

57. Miller, "Toward an Environment/Labor Coalition," pp. 32-39; Sue Pollack and JoAnn Grozuczak, Reagan, Toxics and Minorities (Washington, D.C.: Urban Environment Conference, Inc., 1984), Chapter 1; Kazis and Grossman, Fear at Work, pp. 3-35.

58. Andrew Porterfield and David Weir, "The Export of Hazardous Waste," Nation 245 (October 3, 1987): 340-344; Jim Vallette, The International Trade in Wastes: A Greenpeace Inventory (Washington, D.C.: Greenpeace, 1989), pp. 7-16.

59. Jack Bloom, Class, Race and the Civil Rights Movement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 18.

60. Bullard and Wright, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity," p. 32.

61. Urban Environment Conference, Inc., Taking Back Our Health: An Institute on Surviving the Toxic Threat to Minority Communities (Washington, D.C.: Urban Environment Conference, Inc., 1985), p. 29.

62. Bullard and Wright, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity," pp. 32-33.

63. Commission for Racial Justice, Toxic Wastes and Race: A National Report on the Racial and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites (New York: United Church of Christ, 1987), p. x.

64. Taylor, "Do Environmentalists Care About Poor People?" pp. 51-52.

65. Barbara Reynolds, "Triana, Alabama: The Unhealthiest Town in America," National Wildlife 18 (August 1980): 33; Bullard and Wright, "The Politics of Pollution," p. 75.

66. Michael Haggerty, "Crisis at Indian Creek," Atlanta Journal and Constitution Magazine (January 20, 1980): 14-25.

67. Ibid.