Overcoming Racism In Environmental Decision Making

Rhetorical Analysis

In the article titled, Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decision-making, Mr. Bullard highlights the issue of environmental discrimination. This is the allocation of negative environmental externalities in the United States on the bases of race and income. In his opening statement, he argued how “if a community is poor or inhabited largely by people of color, there is a good chance it receives less protection than a community that is affluent or white.” It is a good way to get the reader’s attention to such controversial topic and in a way, spark that controversy. The article was written in 1993 as a follow up to the Environmental Justice Movement. The purpose is to show how racism still plays a role in environmental policy-making

One example, in 1992 a study by the National Law Journal found that when dealing with Superfunds (sites with extreme levels of pollution) government agencies aid white communities at a faster rate than the sites found in communities of low income and minority backgrounds. The study also found, how fines on polluting companies usually are higher on companies located in affluent communities than those fined in poorer locations. This is followed by showing sites located in poor communities take an average of 20 years for them to be placed in the “Superfund cleanup program”. He also has sufficient evidence to back up his claims and tied them with examples from his experience in low-income communities. He backed up his claim on how dealing with the problem is also approached differently. The sites in affluent, white communities receive permanent treatments while those of low-income communities receive alternative, less effective solutions. Throughout the article, Mr. Bullard builds credibility by citing different law cases and research done by the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, The National Law Journal, the Argonne National Laboratory, and many

Bullard involves ethos in his article by questioning the actions of the pollutants when presenting his claims. For example, he introduces the concept of Social Equity which is; the role of social factors— race, ethnicity, class, culture, lifestyle, and political power – in decision making. The sentences that follow after questioning why agencies and people don’t take all those variables into account when coming up with polluting policies. One of the questions is; if it’s okay to pollute the environments of the poor and intoxicate their kids? He also makes the reader wonder if its right for Cerrell Associates, Inc. to advise the government of California that building such polluting facilities would reduce cost and be more convenient to build in low-income communities? At the core, his questions are based on ethics; is it right to harm other to save money while polluting their communities and their