Discuss: Global Warming Is Colorblind

Jennifer,

This is a very good article.  I enjoyed it and please, keep up the great work.

Terry

Great article!  I also noticed a lot more white people than other colors when working in the nonprofit environmental sector.  I really think the environment is something that should bring ALL of us together to peacefully solve this huge problem the world faces.

AlienFarmer
http://www.SolarCoupons.com

As director of the Jefferson County Public Schools Center for Environmental Education in Louisville Kentucky, I share Jennifer Oladipo’s concern about the whiteness of the environmental movement.  Certainly the environmental movement and the environmental education have not been inclusive nor focused on outreach to all of the citizens who live in the communities that they work in.  I do believe that that the environmental education field is beginning to recognize this and are working to become more representative.  Three examples:  An online newsletter published by the JCPS Center for Environmental Education and the JCPS Multicultural Education called Global Connections: staying in touch with culture and the environment, http://www.jcpsky.net/ee/globalconnections.  Then just last month, our offices sponsored an environmental justice tour of for all 90 elementary principals in our district that explored environmental impacts that affect our students. Nationally the North American Association for Environmental Education has created a diversity committee http://www.naaee.org/programs-and-initiatives/diversity that is trying to address the issues that Ms. Oladipo raises. They are of significant concern and she is right on the money.

This article is simplistic nonsense. Of course minorities are under-represented in the environmental movement; anyone can see that. But to write this off to being a matter of not enough newsletters and press releases being directed toward minorities is a cop-out. There are complex socio-economic, cultural and historical factors at play in limiting the numbers of African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans that are active environmentalists(just as there are complex factors that limit the number of rural white environmentalists). To pretend otherwise does nothing to ameliorate the problem.

Of course the environmental movement needs minorities. Of course these issues concern us all.  Of course many of our institutions are inherently racist. We all know this. We can either stand around patting ourselves on the back for being among the just, or we can try and foster constructive dialog to begin to move forward. This author does nothing to encourage such dialog (as evidenced by the two trite comments above). I expect better from Orion.

I would agree with Kevin that there’s complex reasons for the lack of minority participation i the environmental movement. But is it really “simplistic nonsense” to think that a environmental organization should market themselves to more diverse audiences, if they want their support and participation? In America, if you want to expand market share, that’s whay you do: put your product, or cause, in front of people to whom it maight appeal. True, sending news releases and newsletter to minority media outlets and potential members is a small start. Environmental organizations need to more broadly look at how they serve minority populations, interests, and community. They need to look beyond their usual networks and partner with African American churches and community centers, for example, in urban neighborhoods. But for starters,  why not reach out to invite members of the broader community—and not just affluent whites—to the next nature hike or family program? Again, as part of a larger strategy, trying to get your communications materials in the hands of a more diverse audience is a good place to start.

Maybe this divide in the “marketing of environmentalism” isn’t white vs. black.  Maybe it has to do with education, or geography, or income, or career, or what hand you write with, or what’s your favorite flavor of jello.  Like so many “problems” it’s easy to jump to race as the explanation. 

I suppose anyone armed with a little data and fresh paper cuts from turning the pages of Freakonomics could make all kinds of claims about the inequalities of the new trendy environmental movement.  “Data shows that ex-convicts are 68% less likely to donate to environmental movements.”  (I just made that up.)  Or, “Left handed women who are on their second marriage, and have recently taken SCUBA diving lessons are 36.7% more likely to buy TerraPasses.”  (I just made that up too.)  Anyway, figuring these correlations might be fun and interesting, but not many people are going to A) even think about it, and B) care.  It’s just easier to make it into white vs. black.

And the real assumption behind nearly all of those types of comparisons is AFLUENT (white) vs. POOR (black).  Which leaves out even more than just the “1/3 of the population”.  There are poor whites and affluent blacks too.  It’s not fair that they don’t get turned into statistics as much.

I probably shouldn’t comment on this as I live in a small, mostly white, rural town in Maine and before this most of my activism was in a slightly more diverse (though not much) small town in Vermont. The constituency missing both here and in Vermont, as I see it anyway, is lower income people and families with small children (often one and the same). I have often felt that class is a great divider of the environmental community, though that is not often addressed. There’s a certain arrogance and self-righteousness that seems directed at the poor and I’m not even sure the environmental community is totally aware of it.

There are organizations offering workshops and information on issues of race but very few (are there any?) addressing how to bring poor people into the action.

Regardless, I don’t support more direct mail no matter who it’s aimed at. Press releases, sure, but we don’t need more crap to recycle (or worse, throw away). Organizations get their names from many sources, usually beginning at one point with someone giving money or buying something. So if you haven’t donated to an environmental organization or purchased something from one then your name won’t be on all those lists. If you have, then your name could be sold or traded and your mail box will fill with solicitations.

It seems to me that the best way to reach unrepresented constituencies of any sort would be to find ways of addressing issues that specifically concern them in the context of the organization’s mission. And to do it in an open and friendly manner that invites participation and that treats people as equals. This is harder to do than it is to talk about because when you’re raised with a certain amount of wealth and priviledge that’s the lens through which you view the world. So it’s unconscious. But folks on the receiving end of an arrogant attitude, however unintended it may be, don’t appreciate it and will be more likely to respond with indifference, hostility, and defensiveness.

I consider myself an environmentalist because I love the Earth and care deeply about the future of the whole community of life. But I grew up in a low income family, with less material “wealth” than most of my friends. The difference is my father who shared his love of the woods and mountains with me as soon as I could toddle in them. And his anti-development attitude was communicated to me over and over throughout my growing up years. After a bit of normal teen rebellion, I came around to his point of view by the time I graduated from high school. But Daddy had no use for environmentalists who he felt were a bit shrill and book-learned but otherwise ignorant. I’ll bet people in communities of color feel the same way.

I’ve been active in the environmental movement in Louisville for, well, going on four decades now.  I’m white, as are nearly all the other active environmentalists in town.  Ms. Olidipo’s concern regularly arises in meetings.  The groups that I’ve been involved in have tried various approaches to diversify our ranks over the years, but with little success.  I’ve often asked myself why.  My conclusions, to date, which must be generalizations in this limited-space context:

1.  There’s no one reason for the movement’s homogeneity. 

2.  Most active environmentalists grew up going on family hikes, fishing or camping trips or doing some other sort of outdoor recreation or education, instilling an innate affinity in us for nature. 

3.  Most of us are in a *relatively* privileged socio-economic place that has allowed us experiences that left us seeing ourselves as empowered to make change in our communities and allows us to take the time and money to try to make changes.  We more likely to be already acquainted with whomever we need to call, how to ask for what we want, etc.  We’re more likely to know how to play the game called “politics.”

4.  Minority groups have fewer members with the sense of empowerment and the time and money to act on it.  Minorities that do, however, are more likely to choose to work on “more pressing” issues, such as housing, food, homelessness, etc. 

5.  Comparatively, at least as far as I can tell, black folks are more likely to invest a bigger chunk of their disposable time and money into their churches, and environmentalists, less likely so.  We all have only so much free time and disposable income. 

6.  That minority-oriented media outlets rarely respond to the releases that we send them, I assume that they have concluded that environmental issues are of less interest to their audiences than other concerns.  Maybe it’s that they think their audiences are less interested in what white, middle-class people have to say about the issue.  Either way, fixing this one will take time.

7.  My personal experience with local efforts to reduce toxic air pollution was alienating.  The encouragement that I felt when a significant number of minorities got involved was quickly tempered with ambivalence.  They wanted to define the problem as one that harms strictly (mostly minority) residents in one end of town, tied their health problems to air pollution only, denied the existence of any lifestyle factors, such as smoking, and portrayed to problem as the product of racism. 

In fact, the data say that the problem is worst there, but certainly a problem throughout the community.  That end of town was mainly white when those industries were built.  We couldn’t agree on the need to keep the vehicle emissions test, so that the significant contributions to our air toxics problem from tailpipe could be reduced, too.  Besides that I think we can’t solve inaccurately defined problems, I think it’s a strategic error to (in effect) tell most of the community that the problem isn’t their problem, too.  My efforts to try to engage with them on more accurate (and I believe, more effective) terms were met with resentment and what I felt was a need to own “victimhood.”  We ended up largely working side-by-side, rather than as a collaborative team.  :-(

I expect that things will slowly get better, as we close the education and economic gaps, get more minority kids outdoors via school, scouts, etc.  I know that I won’t be the only white environmental activist that will keep trying.