Transformative Politics

This chapter is probably the more interesting one in the book. After Cole goes through the entire book elaborating on how the current system seem to fail on defending the rights of poorer communities, the last chapter seem to imply that all the grassroots struggles that these people had to go through wasn't such a bad thing afterall. Or at least that's what I felt when I read it.

The idea of transformative politics is that the people who went through such environmental injustice eventually learn new skills and improve their knowledge and understanding about the issue. It also implies that communities who seem indifferent to the issue will eventually realize that they need to do something to change the situation. Cole also claims that through grassroots struggle, small communities will learn to network and outsource for organizations that will support their fight for justice in their community.

All the above is true and it helps in educating the people but it comes at a price. People have to struggle and probably bear the consequences of such injustices before becoming adept at the issue. This brings me to the question if such information was in the first place, in some way, forced onto the people because they have to learn it or else face possible health consequences. In addition to this, they would also have to fight against corporations and maybe even the government (in some instances) in what seems like a losing battle most of the time. As mentioned in the book, losing can be bad for community morale and personal confidence.

Furthermore, Cole mentions that such battles against environmental injustices brought such issues to light in the eyes of the EPA and other government officials/bodies. Even though there are new laws enacted to protect such communities from further injustices, in page 163 it says" Some offices within EPA now operate with environmental justice as part of their approach; others are still actively hostile to it". Now, shouldn't that sentence raise a few eyebrows?

There are people within the EPA who oppose the idea of environmental justice! Why is that, I wonder. It is just crazy to think about it. The last 2 pages of the chapter gives us an insight as to how some semblance of environmental justice can be practiced and it is through the "fusion" of various movements. It makes sense but in practice, it is not that easy to get 2 completely different interest groups to find common ground and agree on something.

The Executive Order in Environmental Justice made justice a policy of the federal government. So if offices within the EPA are hostile to it, then isn't it against the law? Enacting such a law may have taken a lot of hard work and struggle from activists but it doesn't work if there is no enforcement of the law.

I guess no matter now much we try and fix the system, there is no fail-proof method in ensuring the common practice of environmental justice.