I was very pleased with Shrader-Frechette’s discussion on environmental injustices abroad and moral obligations of developed nations responsible for those injustices. In this chapter, the author argues for equal protection of citizens in “underdeveloped nations” (for brevity’s sake, I’ll use her nomenclature, although I don’t condone it) by the developed nations responsible for exporting to them dangerous technologies (eg, pesticides) and thereby imposing significant health and safety risks on disadvantaged citizens. As in previous chapters, she makes implications for the moral requirements of an action by disproving moral objections to that action, in keeping with the PPFPE’s provision for “the burden of proof” on the discriminator. Shrader-Frechette challenges the isolationist perspective that attempts to justify “minding our own business” when it comes to environmental injustice abroad by addressing four of its arguments. Curiously, she concludes that neither the corporations holding private interests or nations with public welfare interests are effective in safeguarding citizens from environmental risks, and that efforts to do so must be spearheaded by a consumer revolution.
The first argument that Shrader-Frechette breaks down is the “Social progress argument.” This position holds that a universal principle for environmental justice (the PPFPE) would compromise economic and social progress, both of which are paramount to equal treatment. This is often the primary argument in favor of free trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. I agree with Shrader-Frechette that the social progress argument is inconsistent with the principles of justice and our Bill of Rights, the foundation of our nation’s government and ideology. She also points out the obvious but surprisingly little-known fact that “often the prosperity alleged to follow from ignoring health, environmental or human rights concerns never materializes (in the undeveloped nation).” This is an important aspect of her argument and reminiscent of the previous chapter’s topic. If the communities of developing nations don’t advance economically as a result of undertaking environmental burdens, it follows that the action is unjust. This ties in with the “bloody loaf argument,” which holds that nations subject to environmental risks are generally better off than they were without the risks. If the nation gains nothing but environmental and health hazards, that’s hardly a fair compromise for free trade.
One of the most compelling arguments is the consent argument, which is self-explanatory. Shrader-Frechette has discussed ethical issues of free informed consent in environmental decision-making processes at length in previous chapters. I think the topic of free informed consent is most incendiary and ethically cumbersome within the context of multinational transfers of environmental hazards. Here, free informed consent depends on 1) whether citizens were adequately informed about the risks and 2) whether the government can give free informed consent on behalf of the citizens who will be exposed to risks. Shrader-Frechette concludes that “for half the world’s population, free informed consent may not be possible” because workers are not always free to object or adequately educated about the risks involved in their work. Both of which are ultimately the fault of the government charged with their protection.
The topic of banned pesticide exports to foreign, underdeveloped nations has been an issue of concern for me for a long time. This is a topic on which I’ve done ample research, and, after reading this chapter, probably one that I’ll pursue for one of my papers in this class. My interest in pesticides began when I first heard about the Dole/Dow lawsuit on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers. In this case, Dole Fruit Co. and Dow Chemical Co. (aka the Axis of Environmental Evil) were sued after thousands of Latin American farm workers were diagnosed sterile (that is, incapable of conceiving children) due to chronic exposure to a pesticide called DBCP during the 1970s. DBCP has been banned almost worldwide but, naturally, American companies like Dow Chemical still produce the toxic pesticide and ship it for use overseas. I remember thinking, God, that’s monstrous, I’m never buying Dole fruit again, those bastards! I still don’t buy Dole fruit as a personal protest against their reign of terror on the environment and public health, but I’ve since learned enough about market demand, free trade agreements and environmental justice to realize that mere consumer choices are sadly inept at addressing our nation’s dirty work in countries like Nicaragua.
There’s a really great documentary called Blue Vinyl about the lifespan of PVC and its extremely toxic effects. The director/narrator confronts her parents at the beginning because they’ve replaced the wood siding of her childhood home with vinyl siding, which she learns releases dioxin when it’s manufactured and when it’s disposed of, inflicting a whole laundry list of health problems (including cancer) on the communities in which PVC plants are located. She carries a slab of this blue vinyl around with her while she rides on a speedboat in a Louisiana swamp where dioxin has contaminated the fish and takes the blue vinyl with her to an interview with the face of PVC. At the end of the film, she convinces her parents to replace the vinyl siding with eco-friendly adobe, but they’re at a loss for what to do with the vinyl. They obviously can’t throw it away, that would negate the whole purpose for replacing it. Anyway, she ultimately develops a consumer advocacy group driven to stop PVC products from making it to our homes.
I guess where I’m going with this is that I don’t know if a consumer revolution will rectify environmental injustice. Hell, I’m not even sure a consumer revolution is possible. I used to think that, if everyone in the world just STOPPED buying PVC products, companies would cease to produce PVC. In a perfect world, sure. But that’s just not how marketing in a consumer society operates. Even if PVC companies didn’t have all the money and resources they need to buy every marketing guru in the world, it’s completely unrealistic to expect that every consumer in the world will suddenly possess the knowledge, the willpower and the moral character to stop buying PVC products.
