The third chapter of Resisting Global Toxics helped clear up a few uncertainties I’ve had about the methods and principles of transnational environmental justice movement networks. In the first place, the author identifies a major problem with TSMOs, that some activists make the mistake of adopting a moderate stance on pollution and EJ, namely focusing on reducing pollution and inequality in general. The author makes a good argument in favor of adopting the strongest stance, that transnational environmental injustice can only be rectified by reversing trends of injustice entirely. I voiced a similar perspective with regard to clean production in my response to Faber’s essay. I don’t believe that the systematic and highly politicized environmental injustices outlined in chapters 5 and 6 of this book about exporting pesticides and e-waste to the global South can be adequately mitigated without making significant changes to the lifestyles of citizens in the global North. I also strongly agree with the author’s conclusion to chapter 3 in which he describes the role of governments in the environmental justice movement as one of protectionism. Federal governments ought to be fundamentally and foremost responsible for protective public health and environmental safety for its citizens.
Chapter 4 describes the “out of sight, out of mind mentality” that global North nations adopt in order to ignore domestic and global environmental injustice. I thought that Charles Mills’ psychological and cultural analysis on perspectives of people of color as sources of “garbage” and “filth” was really telling, although I’d counter that most consumers probably have no idea where their waste is disposed of thanks to our out of sight, out of mind mentality. In any case, I agree with Pellow’s final diagnosis of the problem as waste colonialism, the only cure for which is clean production and the marked reduction in our consumption. As such, I definitely see the value of our class assignment to carry our garbage around with us every day. I’m reminded of a series of commercials by Brita, which attempt to make consumers more aware of the long-term environmental effects of their daily actions (buying bottled water)—albeit for the purposes of consuming yet another product (Brita filters, made of the same materials and equally as difficult to dispose of). It’s an essential mentality that we as members of a consumer culture must adopt in order to change global social and environmental inequalities.
I was surprised to learn about domestic “sham recycling” affecting communities like Madras, India. I recycle most of the domestic waste that comes out of my apartment (every ounce of my garbage is organic and could easily be converted to compost—if I had use for compost), and it was disturbing to think that the plastic products I use could end up poisoning the air or a factory worker and her kids in India. Again, I think that the only consumer-based solution to unjust scenarios like this is to stop buying products marketed such that they harm disenfranchised communities in the global South. This is a small sacrifice for my lifestyle, and one that I’m willing and able to make in order to contribute to the greater struggle for transnational environmental justice.
