Radical
Statistics
The environment and social harm:
A critique of the UK Sustainable
Development Strategy
Tom Bigg
'We all have a stake in the health and integrity of the environment. If there is any case where collective action is essential, it is in ensuring that our environment is protected so that future generations are not paying the price of our profligacy.'(1)
Tony Blair's statement to the Royal Society four years ago strikes many chords with the environmental movement. He invokes the notion of 'stakeholders', and with it the idea that collaboration and a communal ethos will be necessary if environmental problems are to be tackled. He juxtaposes 'our' interests with the wellbeing of 'the environment', and sets this against the damaging effects of continuing 'profligacy', which suggests a moral imperative to alter our behaviour. He implies that action in this area is of paramount importance, but that society as a whole carries the burden of responsibility. These sentiments have become part of the political mainstream. Yet, despite such exhortations, environmental problems persist and in many instances are growing rapidly. As I will go on to illustrate, dilemmas such as climate change, pollution, and the depletion of natural resources cannot be considered in isolation from other social and economic policy areas. Yet, in the presentation of the information on which environmental policy is decided, it is often considered as discrete from broader concerns. To return to Tony Blair's words, the two areas conspicuously absent are attention to present needs which are inadequately met, both in the UK and globally, and the role of government in providing an infrastructure within which broader social change can find coherence.
The inference that we are all in the same boat, and that all bear some measure of responsibility for continuing degradation to the environment, also characterises international diplomacy on environmental issues. The UK Strategy for Sustainable Development acknowledges inequalities between rich and poor, both within Britain and internationally. It places strong evidence on the capacity for economic growth to act as a panacea for both inequality and environmental problems:
We have to find a new way forward. We need greater prosperity with less environmental damage. We need to improve the efficiency with which we use resources. We need thriving cities, towns and villages based on strong economies, good access to services and attractive and safe surroundings. And we need international co-operation to overcome environmental problems, to allow trade to flourish and to help the world's poorest people as we move towards a more global society. (DETR, 1999).In other words, economic growth, environmental protection and social improvement are all possible in a future scenario which seems too good to be true. The most obvious challenge to this projection is also the most difficult to tackle. The issues outlined above are so central to every aspect of government policy, both nationally and internationally, that should they be serious sustainable development would quickly come to be accepted as the fulcrum of policy making at every level of governance. There is little evidence that this is the case. The Treasury still bases economic decision-making on economic instruments such as Gross National Product (GNP) which take no account of external social and environmental costs. The level of UK official development assistance to developing countries still stands at around 0.25% of GNP, despite an internationally agreed target of 0.7%. International environmental legislation provides no compulsion for action by states, unlike the growing range of trade agreements which have been strongly supported by the UK government. All of these are critical factors which currently mitigate against radical change in Britain or globally.
A second query is whether there is any evidence that processes of globalization show any signs of benefiting the world's poorest, as the UK Sustainable Development Strategy suggests. Inequality between countries over the past forty years has increased rapidly, during a period in which international trade has risen exponentially. The income gap between the fifth of the world's people living in the richest countries and the fifth living in the poorest was 74 to 1 in 1997, up from 80 to 1 in 1990 and 30 to 1 in 1960 (United Nations, 1999: 3).
Finally, the Strategy does not acknowledge difficult choices or painful effects of a transition to a more sustainable society. It avoids specific proposals on the future of the fishing industry, or on the implications for farming and agriculture. It invokes notions of equity in its call for action, but steers clear of any suggestion that equity in the use of available resources is necessary.
If the above challenges to the UK Strategy are accepted, what are the barriers to tackling the problematic issues raised? First, that environment is considered as a discrete policy area, the principal focus of which domestically is on preservation and conservation. The notion of 'environmental harm', recognising the social impacts of environmental damage, is pertinent here. Second, that international environmental concerns are considered subsidiary to economic, social and territorial interests in international diplomacy. Growing inequality in the consumption of limited resources, and the tensions this creates between and within societies, threaten to destabilise this assumption.
What do we mean by environmental harm?
Environmental principles can be rather crudely divided into two categories: those which call for conservation or preservation of the natural for its intrinsic value, and those which seek to promote a more harmonious interaction between humans and the rest of the planet primarily in the interests of people.2 The former find expression in calls for reductions in the total impact of humanity - through prohibiting the commercial exploitation of Antarctica, for instance, or taking steps to preserve endangered species. These concerns could well be expressed in terms of 'environmental harm', and in many instances legislation or other instruments for enforcement exist which criminalise transgression. This notion of the rights of other species, and of the natural world in general is most forcibly expressed in this country by the animal rights movement. Although this is an important element in the development of a coherent theory of what constitutes harm in this area, I am going to focus primarily on issues which entail human wellbeing.
There is no coherent concept of 'environmental crime' which could constitute a starting point for the development of a theory of harm. Redress for damage to property and legislation upholding environmental standards in the workplace can be understood as measures which protect individuals, but these are elements within other systems of rights which touch only peripherally on environmental issues. Perhaps the core challenge to be addressed is the difficulty in establishing responsibility for environmental harm. As an example, atmospheric pollutants, mainly produced by burning fossil fuels, are linked with respiratory diseases, cancers, cardiovascular diseases and the rapidly growing asthma mortality rates observed in many Northern countries. In Britain alone, 10,000 premature deaths every year have been attributed to the effects of small particulates which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems (Bullock, 1995). Yet, the association between these problems and the human activity which produces them has not resulted in many structured systems for redress.3 The link between cause and effect is too oblique, the responsibility of individual actors is too diffuse, and societal norms legitimise the behaviour which leads to these problems.
All of this suggests that environmental harm has been interpreted as distinct from other aspects of social harm which are closely associated with inequality, deprivation and discrimination. A common perception of environmentalists as a relatively affluent elite who can afford concern about issues of conservation reflects this differentiation. Yet this is not borne out by any consideration of the unequal impact of environmental problems. The United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Report for 1998 explores the correlation between poverty and environmental harm. The report demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of those who die each year from pollution of water and air are poor people in developing countries. Deaths from indoor air pollution in rural India alone are equivalent to deaths from outdoor pollution in urban areas in the entire world. This reflects the economic necessity to burn dung, wood and crop residues for cooking and heating, which produce toxic substances that are extremely harmful in confined spaces. Although less damaging fuels are increasingly available, their higher cost still puts them beyond the reach of many.
In addition, such people are disproportionately affected by increasing desertification, and by the floods, storms and crop failures caused by climate change. The UNDP report also focuses on environmental challenges which arise from growing poverty - increasing impoverishment and a lack of alternatives leads to a swelling number of poor and landless people putting extreme pressure on the natural resource base in their struggle to survive. The Report states 'there is an irony here. Even though poor people bear the brunt of environmental damage, they are seldom the principal creators of the damage. It is the rich who pollute more and contribute more to global warming. It is the rich who generate more waste and put more stress on nature's sink' (UNDP, 1998: 66).
In the UK context, the proposition that inequality within society and overconsumption by the affluent constitute elements of harm to the poor and the marginalised is problematic for policy makers. Government positions and actions focus on the mitigation of extreme deprivation and the availability of opportunities for betterment, rather than on underlying structural disparities which lead inexorably to a growing gulf between the richest and poorest in society. Similarly, environmental policy is based on a series of trade-offs with other policy areas. These are based on the supposition that continued economic growth can be achieved without increasing environmental degradation through greater efficiency in the use of natural resources. Whilst environmental indicators have been established by the UK government in order to steer policy in related areas,4 statistical data relating to the UK which could quantify correlations between social deprivation and environmental problems is not readily available.
This association between social deprivation and environmental harm is not limited to developing countries. In the United States, increasing attention has been paid over the last decade or so to correlations between deprivation, race, gender and environmental disadvantage. The Environmental Justice Movement which has developed focuses on the degree to which instances of environmental harm suffered by these sectors of society can be attributed to systemic discrimination on racial or economic grounds. Clarice Gaylord, the director of the US Environment Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Equity, says that 'environmental equity refers to the principle that all persons should be treated equally under environmental laws and that environmental policies should be enforced in an equitable manner'. Wigley and Shrader-Frechette suggest that the current situation in the US is a long way from that ideal:
Socio-economically deprived groups are more likely than affluent whites to live near polluting facilities, eat contaminated fish and be employed at risky occupations. Because minorities are statistically more likely to be economically disadvantaged, many researchers assert that "environmental racism" - racial bias in imposing environmental threats - is the central cause of disparities in risks that minorities face. Indeed, some have argued that race is an independent factor, not reducible to socio-economic status, in predicting the distribution of air pollution, contaminated fish consumption, municipal landfills and incinerators, abandoned toxic waste dumps and lead poisoning in children. Yet, whether race or socio-economic status is the main cause of such inequities is still debated. Because they are more likely to be poor, minorities are also more likely to be politically disenfranchised. Thus, they are typically less able to fight unwanted risks. This disability could explain the disproportionate share of environmental threats that minorities appear to bear. (Wigley and Shrader-Frechetter, 1996).Similar movements focusing on inequality in the effects of environmental damage are active in countries such as South Africa and India. In the latter, awareness of such issues was given powerful impetus by the Bhopal disaster in 1984. 8,000 people died and more than 50,000 were injured when lethal gases leaked from a Union Carbide factory and contaminated a nearby squatter settlement. After a protracted legal case the surviving victims were paid a nominal sum for the injuries they had sustained.
If such examples are to be understood as part of a discernible pattern linking inequality with environmental harm, we might expect to find a range of policy responses which attempt to redress the imbalance. However, in the UK at least, such associations are hardly acknowledged.
Sustainable production and consumption
Current consumption of resources by the world as a whole is not viable in the longer term as it will result in unsustainable environmental and social stress. Particular problems exist in certain parts of the world and with certain resources. Per capita consumption in developed countries threatens to cause instability through disruptions to many aspects of the natural environment. Also significant is the pronounced under-consumption in many parts of the world, and among sectors of otherwise affluent societies. These factors are acknowledged in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy:
Over the last few years ... we have realised that a more urgent threat arises from the environmental damage caused by the extraction, use and disposal of natural resources. And we now understand that sustainable development also means making sure that the rate of consumption of renewable resources does not reduce their availability for future generations. Just to keep the UK's resource use at today's levels would require resource efficiency to improve at a rate which matches the growth in the economy. But that rate of change will not be enough to reduce global environmental pressures which are already severe, in particular since increases in global consumption will be necessary to eradicate extreme poverty. (DETR, 1999: 6.6; 6.7).The statistics which substantiate this concern are alarming. The 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures; the poorest 20% for only 1.3%. Evidence of irreversible effects of climate change and other severe problems arising from human activity are presented in the United Nations Environment Programme's 1999 Global Environmental Outlook. The UK Strategy suggests that technical fixes will resolve these difficulties: 'Future progress will involve better production processes and delivering what consumers want in new ways (DETR, 1999: 6.10). To demonstrate that this process has already started, the Strategy states 'Progress has been made in many areas. For example, washing powders are less bulky, do not need such hot water, and get clothes cleaner' (DETR, 1999: 6.8). Gandhi is said to have rejected the Western model of development, saying 'it took the exploitation of half the globe to make Britain what it is. How many globes would it take India to do the same?' The chart below illustrates projected requirements for the year 2050, if the UK's current levels of resource use were to apply to the world as a whole: CLICK HERE Source: McLaren et al, 1998
An appreciation of the limits imposed by ecological factors is thus the impetus for consideration of ways in which what is available could be used more efficiently. There is also an emerging recognition that equity in the use of finite resources constitutes the most logical basis from which to calculate allocations if limits on overall use are to be imposed. One more recent application of this approach has been to assess an entitlement to emissions of 'greenhouse gases' which could be used to assess a per capita allocation for emissions.(5)
It is perhaps ironic, given the above, that public opinion and awareness seem to be on a divergent path. The UNDP Human Development Report states that 'Pressures of competitive spending and conspicuous consumption turn the affluence of some into the social exclusion of many. When there is heavy social pressure to maintain high consumption standards and society encourages competitive spending for conspicuous displays of wealth, inequalities in consumption deepen poverty and social exclusion' (UNDP, 1998).
Conclusions
Through the selective presentation of information and concepts the UK Strategy constitutes a justification for continuation of current practice, while purporting to be the basis for a radical reappraisal. The examples given of the disproportionate impact of environmental problems on the most vulnerable and marginalised groups of society, both in the UK and internationally, suggest that it is invidious to ignore the present and future causes of these problems, or to separate consideration of environmental issues from their broader social and economic context.
NOTES
- Tony Blair addressing the Royal Society, February 1996.
- In practice it is very difficult to delineate between underlying principles in this way. For instance, plant species saved from extinction may hold medicinal benefits which have yet to be discovered. The distinction is clearer when these two perspectives are in opposition - when calls for the preservation of seal populations by environmental groups conflict with established social and economic activities of local people, for example.
- Kay and Henderson (1997) cite legislation in California which requires tobacco companies to contribute funds to anti-smoking campaigns as a precedent for such recompense.
- See for example the 'Headline Indicators' launched by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions in 1999. These are intended to guide UK policy on environment and sustainable development, but do not include any measure of poverty or deprivation.
- See the work of the Global Commons Institute.
REFERENCES
Bullock, S. (1995), Prescription for Change: Health and Environment, Friends of the Earth: London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999), A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom, DETR.
Kay, A. and Henderson, H. (1997), Truth in Advertising Assurance Set-Aside: A Proposal to Help Steer the US Economy Toward Sustainability.
McLaren, D., Bullock, S. and Nusrat, Y. (1998), Tomorrow's World: Britain's Share in a Sustainable Future, Friends of the Earth: London.
United Nations Development Programme (1999), Human Development Report 1999, p.3, Oxford University Press: New York.
United Nations Development Programme (1998), Human Development Report 1998, Oxford University Press: New York.
Wigley, D. C. and Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1996), Environmental Racism and Biased Methods of Risk Assessment, unattributed Internet article.
Tom Bigg
Sociology Department
City University
Northampton Square
London EC1
Tel: 020 7431 1772
E-mail: tom.bigg@dnet.co.uk
