The United States Environmental Justice System: Interactions with Science
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) covers a variety of subject matter areas, including Environmental Justice (EJ). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines EJ as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” According to EPA, “fair treatment” implies that no one group should pay a disproportionate share of the negative environmental effects of industrial, governmental, and commercial activities or policies.
The litigations of numerous EJ cases revolve around having access to clean air, water, land, public transportation, and other human necessities, especially for historically marginalized groups, also called the EJ communities. Redlining, gerrymandering, discrimination in public programs, unequal access to education, employment, and health care are a few subjects of EJ trials. Economic repercussions, such as the perceived effects of pollution sources on property values, are likewise stated as an EJ concern.
This In Focus aims to inform the readers on how science is contextualized within EJ, backed by a few examples that depict certain considerations required while using science. It highlights the benefits of it as well as the social criticism for using science to solve EJ issues. Furthermore, it lays out the federal actions on utilizing science in the EJ system that reveals the tension between the justice system and science.
Science and Environmental Justice (EJ)
EJ’s varied and multidisciplinary literature provides significant critical assessments of modern science’s involvement in the creation of the world’s current social and environmental issues. The practice of “science in the public interest” is welcomed by activists and EJ organizations due to its power in advancing the society. Several federal agencies work towards involving scientists to solve EJ issues. Environmental scientists evaluate the contaminants’ influence on the land, water, and air, whereas social scientists bring in the human dimensions. Medical scientists measure exposures to health conditions that reflect the severity and impact of pollutants on the EJ communities. An ecologist applies statistical tools and mathematical analysis to problems in the ecology of an EJ impacted area. In criminal justice, judges continue to work closely with scientists, mostly forensic scientists, to ensure their rulings are based on sound scientific knowledge. These are only a few examples of the broad array of scientific experts and fields that have the potential to influence EJ issues and use science as a public good.
However, the EJ communities and non-governmental organizations express distrust in scientists and view them as contributors to their problems. Technological and scientific advancements, such as nuclear waste, toxic pollution, and weapons of mass destruction are heavily criticized by EJ communities and organizations as they are viewed to have disparate impacts. Distrust in science arises when there is a lack of transparency by scientists, as well as under or over-exaggeration of their technological advancements. For example, scientists suggest alternatives or experiment with a new air filter technology or air quality monitoring system in a marginalized community without effectively communicating its pros and cons to the public. Hence, most fossil fuel union workers are against science. Besides that, there is uncertainty in science because it provides how likely something is to occur or the findings are based on probabilities, and that may act as a limitation while understanding causations or correlations.
When scientists and engineers are proposing new infrastructure projects, they could consider the social and scientific aspects, such as the history, demographics, economic conditions, etc. of the location while suggesting development solutions. Most EJ lawsuits are related to the construction of highways through predominantly Black neighborhoods [e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc (NRDC) V. U.S. Department Of Transportation (USDOT)], reduction in ambient air quality due to the development of coal or fossil fuel plants (e.g., WildEarth Guardians v. Mountain Coal Co.), increased transportation of diesel trucks or contaminated drinking water due to run-offs from landfills or leakage of industrial pollutants and/or harmful chemicals like lead (Pb) as seen in Michigan’s Flint Water crisis. When engineers or architects suggest the route for highways or movement to renewable energy sources, it is important that they consider all stakeholders’ perspectives in order to arrive at the best solution for all parties.
Considerations for the use of citizen science
When scientists work on EJ issues, community-based transdisciplinary perspectives and building trust within the EJ communities is advised, mainly because the experiences and skills of individuals from these communities aid in better informing the challenges to scientists. Citizen science projects act as symbiotic exercises wherein volunteers from EJ communities work with scientists to answer real-world questions. These volunteers can be involved at all stages of the scientific process and it helps scientists to get large amounts of data and scientific literacy. For instance, air pollution census projects have been carried out all over the world. Scientists develop these projects closely with EJ communities and that has attained a holistic approach to understanding the factors that affect EJ communities’ environment and health. Some of the issues with using citizen science are lack of diversity in participants, incorporating local data into a national level database, and there can be trade-offs between the scale of the project and the quality of engagement. Scientific advancements in the areas of pollution reduction and health care such as air quality monitoring, electrification of vehicles, enhancing renewable energy usage do not always find their way into communities where there is discrimination or poverty, hence, there is a backlash from EJ communities.
Federal actions on science for EJ
1. Current proposals that require scientific processes in EJ
Due to the exclusion of EJ communities in decision-making, the Biden administration is trying to center equity while framing scientific communications and bringing science and scientists together with communities to improve environmental health and safety.
Some Members of Congress have introduced legislations to increase the interaction of EJ and science. Proposals, such as H.R. 2021, the Environmental Justice for All Act in the 117th Congress, considers the inclusion of scientists and proposes to develop the scope of scientific research in EJ issues and policies. A new study is assigned to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in the H.R. 2021 for research on health disparities impacting communities of color as well as expand support for basic, epidemiological, and social scientific investigations. Additionally, the 117th Congress’ H.R. 2434, the Environmental Justice Act of 2021 requires agencies to incorporate community-based science i.e., voluntary public participation in the scientific process. However, all of the above proposals are only introduced, and not laws until the date of this memo.
2. Legislating the science of EJ
Moreover, most of the EJ lawsuits are based on Executive Order 12898 ̶ “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations” which does not explicitly mention the role of science. Members of Congress may seek to clarify the federal courts’ differing perspectives as they assess whether or not to address environmental justice with or without science. Because Executive Order 12898 does not create enforceable rights, federal courts have refused to hear legal claims based on purported violations of the Order. Thus, there is tension between law and science, especially EJ. One way to rectify the courts’ differing perspectives is for Congress to clearly address whether and under what legal principles the science of EJ is judicially reviewable.
Other Congressional Research Service (CRS) Resources on EJ
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10590, Addressing Environmental Justice Through NEPA.
CRS In Focus IF10529, Role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Environmental Justice.
