Structuring Environmental Justice

Stony Brook, N.Y. – Despite the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, issues of environmental justice still plague many populations in the United States. Although Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities have had some success protecting their communities from environmental damage from pollution, Native Americans have had a more difficult time. Due to their semi-autonomous political status, tribal lands do not have the kind of protection that citizens of the United States have from the EPA, and tribes must negotiate based only on their own resources. Historically, this arrangement has not been advantageous.

Kyle Powys Whyte, who recently completed his Ph.D. in Philosophy at Stony Brook, is a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation and has seen and heard about these issues firsthand. His dissertation focuses on the communicative gaps that exist between Native American communities and organizations that wish to use tribal lands, whether government or corporate. Kyle described the currently flawed framework that has been established by the EPA that directs negotiation between Native Americans and those wishing to implement possibly harmful technologies on their lands.

According to Kyle, an example of why Indian lands have been targeted in some cases, particularly as sites for municipal waste incinerators, is that municipal waste is a State’s responsibility, not the Federal Government. Since Tribal lands are actually federal lands, municipal waste disposal sited there will not be subject to State or Federal regulators, making it an extremely attractive place for those looking to dispose of waste.

“So then they start negotiating with the tribe,” said Kyle. “And depending the tribe’s historical and economic situation, they have to start making compromises.”

“And that’s just one example – and even within this example, there are many legal nuances and differences that can only be accounted for on a case by case basis. There are examples just as complicated for almost every potentially hazardous technology.” 

At the heart of the problem, at least from Kyle’s perspective, is the asymmetrical relationship between members of the Tribe and those that wish to use Indian lands to site a technology, usually the Federal Government or a corporation. Historically, this situation have left many tribal lands with various unwanted technologies.

Waste incinerators are oftentimes placed on Tribal lands.

Recently, however, this issue has entered the public consciousness, and not just on Indian lands, but also in economically disadvantaged areas. “What is changing today, is that a lot of different movements, the environmental movement, the environmental justice movement, have begun to change policy in the United States, and have begun to create a different cultural policy.”

“Across the board people in government are concerned about public participation and public engagement…people are very concerned with how Native Americans participate in the environmental decision-making. [And now] the government has certain guidelines for how Indian communities are able to have a voice in technical and environmental decision-making.”

Despite the recent focus on public involvement concerning environmental issues in the U.S., what this involvement should actually be is not well-defined. “Well, we want everybody to participate, well, how are they going to participate? And what sorts of guidelines do government agencies need to follow? What’s the normative basis for this?”

The current arrangement that the EPA has established is for public engagement activities. When a corporation or the government wants to install a technology on Tribal lands, a public meeting is held. Plans and information should be presented by the organization interested in using the land, and the Tribe should take the opportunity to voice their concerns and ask questions.

However, according to Kyle, the public engagement activities are not always productive, informative, or useful.

“If you talk to a lot of people who have actually been to a public engagement activity, especially members of potentially affected communities, that often have unsatisfying experiences. ‘Well, the government folks didn’t listen to us, the people that came to the meeting weren’t really from our community, the elders and other community members didn’t actually show up, or the meeting was scheduled in a place that was difficult for us to get to, or afford to get to’.”

Kyle believes there needs to be a set of moral standards that should apply to these activities. First, whenever there is a disagreement, all participants must understand the nature of the disagreement.

“They actually have to understand it, they don’t have to agree with it, but they have to understand the rationale behind it. They can’t be overly technocratic, it can’t be in government speak, they can’t steamroll the stakeholders and so on.”

Secondly, the meeting has to take into account the potential vulnerability of participants. Sometimes the meeting is manipulated in such a way that opinions aren’t really elicited from stakeholders. Also, there is simply a situation where people cannot afford gasoline or transportation to the meeting. These issues must be accounted for.

And thirdly is recognition justice. What Kyle means by this is that the very structure of the meeting should be agreed upon by both sides. Typically, the corporate interest or the State defines how these meetings proceed.

“[Maybe the stakeholders] think the Army Corp of Engineers should first listen to their concerns, and not ask any questions, and then ask their questions later. The community members too have their own valid perception of how they should participate. And if public meetings are planned in such a way that do not take that into consideration then there is no way of knowing whether the community members are getting their due in the public meeting process.”

Kyle Powys Whyte

Kyle says that these standards touch on other issues taken up by philosophers and ethicists in different contexts. Medical ethicists describe vulnerability in the doctor-patient relationship, and political philosophers discuss the difference between the politics of recognition versus the politics of distribution.

He says the prospects for implementing his ideas within this context are good, and environmental justice groups in general have been having more success.

”There is also a renaissance in Indian lands where tribes are becoming truly autonomous and not just on paper, building wealth and other capacities. They are not only having people from outside the tribe to consult them, but seeking more relationships with the government, with universities, and with other big institutions.”

“If we can create a common language amongst different tribes about recognition, we can start a movement. We may be able to push some policy.”

Kyle completed his Ph.D. in May of this year. He is currently Visiting Assistant Professor in the Philosophy Department at Michigan State University.