Cancer alley

[Gob]

Even if the payouts for white neighbourhoods affected are far greater than those to black or brown neighbourhoods, does it make anyone white who dies from the pollution any less dead?

Are the poor white people who live in polluted areas not also seen as "expendable?"

Why do your sympathies only seem to reside with the black or brown people affected?

Racism.

[Sue U]

There are lots of stupid arguments on this BBS, but this one has to be vying for most stupidest.

[Scooter]

Even if the payouts for white neighbourhoods affected are far greater than those to black or brown neighbourhoods, does it make anyone white who dies from the pollution any less dead?

They are neither more nor less dead, which means that this

the average fine imposed on polluters of white neighborhoods is 506% higher than the average fine imposed on polluters of minority communities

makes no sense as a governmental response.

Are the poor white people who live in polluted areas not also seen as "expendable?"

Apparently not as much as non-white people, when this

the average fine imposed on polluters of white neighborhoods is 506% higher than the average fine imposed on polluters of minority communities

is the government's response to pollution.

]Why do your sympathies only seem to reside with the black or brown people affected?

Racism.

It isn't racist to point out that this

the average fine imposed on polluters of white neighborhoods is 506% higher than the average fine imposed on polluters of minority communities

is indicative of systemic racism.

[Gob]

So, why did you omit poor white people from your sympathies?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Of course, those statistics could show that polluters in wealthier areas pollute far more often and worse than the polluters in not-so-wealthy areas.

I doubt that's the case but the brute stats on fines do not in themselves prove the correlation that is mooted.

It is a silly argument though.

[Gob]

Fair enough, I'll let it drop. No point flogging a dead horse, (unless you're into that sort of thing.)

[Scooter]

So, why did you omit poor white people from your sympathies?

The statement on which I was commenting pointed to a disparity in government response based on race, not on wealth. If fines imposed on polluters in wealthy areas had been shown to be disproportionate to those imposed in poor areas, that would have also been worthy of comment. But those weren't the facts presented in this case (again, by an article you chose to post), so I focused on the facts we had to go on.

[rubato]

Oz is one of the largest exporting countries of poisonous and polluting materials. Do we have an accounting of their death toll? Or does Oz not give a shite?

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Oz doesn't give a shit about what you think, no. Neither does anyone else for that matter.

But, seeing as you cannot look it up yourself, here we go...

PS, dear "shite for brains" rubato, I do not live in Australia.

[Jarlaxle]

Oz doesn't give a shit about what you think, no. Neither does anyone else for that matter.

But, seeing as you cannot look it up yourself, here we go...

PS, dear "shite for brains" rubato, I do not live in Australia.

You of all people know by now that Ozzie is NOT the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

[ex-khobar Andy]

That's true Andy, but I would like to see the data and who is levying the fines. I wouldn't be surprised if the fines in some areas were generally lower than others (a $1000 fine is much more severe, e.g., in Arkansas than California), and that in those areas the polluting plants were clustered around minority areas (segregation still reigns in many states), while in other areas this is not the case. It is entirely possible that the data will bear out what Scooter's post states, but I would like to see them.

I was intrigued enough by the discussion we had here to get the book (Steve Lerner; Sacrifice Zones 2010, MIT Press) out of the library and follow up some of the data. The 506% number comes from a National Law Journal paper of 1992 (now 30 years ago) of Superfund data from the prior 13 years. I could not find a good link to the data itself - the paper is a summary of the data. The specific paragraph is on page 4 of a 7 page data summary:

The most striking imbalance between whites and minorities in The National Law Journal's analysis of the EPA's enforcement effort was a 506 percent disparity in fines under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - the 13-year-old law intended to assure the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste. The average fine in the areas with the greatest white population was $335,566, compared to $55,318 in the areas with the greatest minority population

and that is the source of the quote in the Guardian piece originally linked by Gob.

It is all about economic status of a neighborhood and its racial makeup and it should come as no surprise that they are inextricable linked. And yes it is probably true that perhaps when these polluting factories were located there 50 or 80 years ago the residential neighborhood may have been more middle class than it is now (I am speculating, not looking at data). I know this was a concern of EPA at least during the Clinton years when I was a fairly frequent attender at meetings in DC so I don't know if that number 506% is still accurate. Nevertheless I am sure that there is still a divide, but maybe it's better than it was.

Edited to correct a typo.

[Burning Petard]

Why is there any surprise to discover life is better if you have more money? Or that those who have it rig the rules so it is harder for others to get it.?

snailgate