Oldal 215 [215]
OCR
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 213 A deeper understanding of the decision-making mechanism may bring us closer to the mitigation or elimination of incidental injustices or inequalities. Generally, there are two main types of decision-making mechanisms: one starting from the grass roots, bottom-up; the other top down (Fig. 4). The emergence of environmental injustices can also be interpreted via this analogy. In the case of top-down, exogenous (of external origin) injustice, the unjust situation evolves as an outcome of a process controlled from above. As a result of a decision or series of decisions concerning the environment, differences between geographical units may emerge. This approach infers injustice from the given level of socio-economic developments and from the deliberate or unintentional differentiating practice of state legislation. In Bullard’s view, this is an institutionalized form by which certain social groups use their prejudices and power to the detriment of other groups (Bullard 1990). This is an accidental or conscious outcome of the functioning legal, cultural, religious, educational, economic, environmental, military and social systems. There are currently several debates about the intentionally racist and discriminative instances of environmental injustice, but both environmental racism and environmental discrimination can prevail in the case of top-down decision-making. It is undeniable that environmental harms have a stronger effect on those unable to change their situation for lack of money or political advocacy. These social groups undoubtedly belong to the minorities or to basically marginalized social positions. An apt example of the top-down type of environmental injustice is the above-mentioned story of the burial of toxic waste in Warren county, where without any social consultation, the population was exposed to disproportionately large environmental and health risks (Fig. 4/A). Environmental injustice may also be rooted in the other process which builds the decisions from the bottom up. In this case, the local factors, actors and events also exert an influence on a higher geographical level. In certain instances, affluent or well-connected local communities have the ability to shape not only their own development but also indirectly influence the development of surrounding regions in ways that serve their political interests. Their greater financial resources and lobbying capabilities can lead to decisions that favor their interests, potentially impacting the broader community's development trajectory. In this case, the greater ability to assert the interests of a locality might disadvantage another geographical unit. In spite of the fact that the process seemingly satisfies the grassroots organization of subsidiarity, the excessive influence of regional capital overrides actual partnership. The interests of the more influential, sometimes more affluent populations are satisfied ahead of the needs of the “weaker” ones. Harvey calls this process an urbanization of injustice(Harvey 1996). It may be defined as bottom-up, endogenous (internally rooted) environmental injustice. The issue of traffic organization may serve as an illustrative example. The growing motorization of the present age has boosted automobile stock, and road traffic in parallel. Those who have moved out into the urban area of Budapest tend to choose individual travel means rather than public transport, which burdens those who live along the commuting routes with disproportionately large noise-, vibration-, and air pollution. This is a source of conflicts involving the leaders of the settlements, the commuters and those residents who do not commute. A restriction on commuting would undoubtedly be a rational equitable decision for the disadvantaged , but at the time of writing, this decision appears unlikely. Exposure to traffic-generated harm is thus a typical example of environmental injustice (fig. 4/B).
