Infusing Critical Race Theory into Environmental Justice: Lessons from Nevada

Background and Purpose:

Concerns about environmental inequities blossomed in the late 1970s largely due to the purposeful sitting of a hazardous landfill in predominately Black and poor Warren County, North Carolina. Termed environmental racism, ensuing research and actions tended to focus on similar situations to Warren County. Recently the field has broadened to environmental justice, which argues that vulnerable people are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation. Identified vulnerabilities go beyond race and also include other factors such as national origin and economic status. Social work has accepted the environmental justice framework but applying an additional layer of analysis framed by critical race theory (CRT) may be useful to understand the issues in the United States. This paper explores first-hand accounts of environmental injustice in Nevada, and specifically focuses on the perceptions why the injustice occurred in their communities.

Methods:

This exploratory study utilizes a Community-Based Participatory Research approach through which the community partners are co-investigators. Together we employed a phenomenological design. Fifty participants were recruited through a combined purposive and snowball sampling methodology. The inclusion criterion was first-hand experience with environmental injustice, which was assessed through a screen at first contact. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which included qualitative and demographic questions. Participants represented 11 communities and included Downwinders, farmers, ranchers, immigrants, people of color, Native Americans, and working class people. We analyzed the data through a phenomenological analysis through NVivo for Mac.

Results:

From many of the participants’ viewpoints, the primary reason for the environmental problem that impacted them was not lack of power or oppression; it was essentially bad luck. A small subset of participants stated that the community’s economic standing was the root of the problem. Very few participants discussed race or ethnicity as reasons for environmental injustice. A noticeable theme among the white participants was a rejection of social justice ideology, stating things like all people “generally have the same experiences” and questions about structural inequalities were “naïve.” Among people of color, reasons for the environmental problems remained within the economic and bad luck themes, even when explicitly asked about race and ethnicity.

Conclusions and Implications:

Through guidance from these themes, it could be argued that practice to address environmental injustices should simply focus on resolving the environmental degradation and, perhaps, address economic inequalities as well. However, through applying an additional layer of analysis utilizing a CRT lens, this is problematic because racism is ingrained in the United States. Reasons for lack of inclusion of racial injustices could be a self-protective factor for participants of color or because of the white participants’ own racial biases. Indeed, one white participant canceled her interview due to the partnering agency’s support of Black Lives Matter. Additionally, if actions occur to address the environmental degradation only, as the participants seemed to want, the white communities will fair better while the communities of color will continue to struggle with oppressive power imbalances. Environmental justice cannot be achieved without an explicit anti-racist focus.