Macho Law Brains, Public Citizens, and Grassroots Activists: Three Models of Environmental Advocacy
By Luke W. Cole
INTRODUCTION
Environmental hazards are inequitably distributed in the United States, with poor people and people of color bearing a greater share of environmental danger than wealthy people and white people. In part, this environmental injustice occurs because communities hosting environmental hazards have been excluded from decision-making processes concerning those hazards. Several federal and state environmental laws address this inequity through public participation provisions designed to solicit and involve the public in environmental decision making. Some of these laws are particularly useful for blocking potentially dangerous local land uses. This article will briefly examine some of these laws. This article will also discuss three approaches to environmental advocacy -- the professional, the participatory, and the power models -- and their relative usefulness in resolving inequitable distribution of environmental hazards.
The three models of environmental advocacy offer contrasting approaches to “lawyering for environmental justice.” As the environmental justice movement continues to grow, the attention paid to legal remedies will increase. This attention could generate exciting opportunities for the movement or prove to be the movement's undoing. Because the stakes are high for environmental justice activists, I offer a descriptive and prescriptive analysis of different approaches to the classic environmental justice dispute: the siting of an unwanted facility.
Why use environmental laws to address what appears to be a civil rights problem? A series of recent law review articles has examined the efficacy of using Constitutional equal protection claims to redress the disproportionate burden borne by people of color and found that such claims have provided little protection to communities of color. The few reported cases involving equal protection claims for discrimination in environmental decision making support this view. Thus, communities burdened by environmental hazards have sought other approaches, including the use of environmental laws. This article contends that strategic use of public participation provisions in environmental laws can help relieve the environmental burden of environmental dangers on low-income communities and communities of color, while bringing those communities together to realize and exercise their collective power.
This essay will briefly sketch three models of environmental advocacy: the professional model, the participatory model, and the power model. I also use the colloquial descriptions “macho law brain,” “public citizen,” and “grassroots activist” to describe the stereotypical adherent to each respective model. These models are necessarily caricatures, resembling “real life” only in a broad sense. These models do not necessarily describe particular situations, but serve as teaching tools for examining different styles of environmental advocacy.
Using a generic administrative process for granting land use permits, the article will describe each model and its efficacy for poor people and people of color engaged in environmental struggles. I conclude that the power model of environmental advocacy will achieve the best results for communities, and that community groups and advocates should use a complementary approach including both the power and the participatory models.
Environmental hazards are inequitably distributed in the United States, with poor people and people of color bearing a greater share of environmental danger than wealthy people and white people. In part, this environmental injustice occurs because communities hosting environmental hazards have been excluded from decision-making processes concerning those hazards. Several federal and state environmental laws address this inequity through public participation provisions designed to solicit and involve the public in environmental decision making. Some of these laws are particularly useful for blocking potentially dangerous local land uses. This article will briefly examine some of these laws. This article will also discuss three approaches to environmental advocacy -- the professional, the participatory, and the power models -- and their relative usefulness in resolving inequitable distribution of environmental hazards.
The three models of environmental advocacy offer contrasting approaches to “lawyering for environmental justice.” As the environmental justice movement continues to grow, the attention paid to legal remedies will increase. This attention could generate exciting opportunities for the movement or prove to be the movement's undoing. Because the stakes are high for environmental justice activists, I offer a descriptive and prescriptive analysis of different approaches to the classic environmental justice dispute: the siting of an unwanted facility.
Why use environmental laws to address what appears to be a civil rights problem? A series of recent law review articles has examined the efficacy of using Constitutional equal protection claims to redress the disproportionate burden borne by people of color and found that such claims have provided little protection to communities of color. The few reported cases involving equal protection claims for discrimination in environmental decision making support this view. Thus, communities burdened by environmental hazards have sought other approaches, including the use of environmental laws. This article contends that strategic use of public participation provisions in environmental laws can help relieve the environmental burden of environmental dangers on low-income communities and communities of color, while bringing those communities together to realize and exercise their collective power.
This essay will briefly sketch three models of environmental advocacy: the professional model, the participatory model, and the power model. I also use the colloquial descriptions “macho law brain,” “public citizen,” and “grassroots activist” to describe the stereotypical adherent to each respective model. These models are necessarily caricatures, resembling “real life” only in a broad sense. These models do not necessarily describe particular situations, but serve as teaching tools for examining different styles of environmental advocacy.
Using a generic administrative process for granting land use permits, the article will describe each model and its efficacy for poor people and people of color engaged in environmental struggles. I conclude that the power model of environmental advocacy will achieve the best results for communities, and that community groups and advocates should use a complementary approach including both the power and the participatory models.
