Barry Law Environmental and Earth Law Journal

The Oxfam 2020 report, “Confronting Carbon Inequality”, concluded that between 1990 to 2015, the wealthiest ten percent of the world’s population (630 million people) were responsible for 52% of atmospheric emissions. [1]  Understandably this statistic caused international outrage as individuals and news sources called for the global wealthy to cut their emissions and even revived the spirit of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the rallying cry for anti-capitalists in the digital generation became, “Eat the Rich!”. [2] Countries in the Global North continue to pressure those in the Global South to adopt more sustainable practices—reducing pollution; decreasing deforestation and the effects of climate change; and preserving biodiversity and natural resources—while creating and maintaining poor environmental practices. [3]

These countries should be considered as eco-imperialists and the “sustainable practices” they attempt to persuade others to adopt are eco-fads.  Eco-imperialism is the theory of developed countries extending their power and influence to impose environmental ideologies. [4] Quoting Todd Myers, environmental director of Washington Policy Center and National Center for Policy Analysis scholar, defines eco-fads (environmental trends) as a three-element concept; “First they are personal reflecting the worthiness of the consumer or policymaker choosing the fad. Second, they are popular, demonstrating to others that the person making the decision is environmentally responsible. Finally, eco-fads are at some level phony. They fail to achieve the goal supporters claim to want, creating more negative environmental effects than benefits.” [5] The inconsistency between the personal goal and the results of eco-fads can be seen in studies such as the 2018 Yale Environmental Performance Index ranking developed European and North American countries such as France (2), Denmark (3) Canada (25), and United States (27) high in performance on high-priority environment issues while shipping non-recyclable waste to countries such as the Philippines (82), Turkey (108), China (120), and India (177). [6]

Lost in the anger of the wealthiest ten percent’s appalling carbon footprint is an honest reflection of the impact individuals in the wealthy and middle-class have on the environment and how their influence penalizes impoverished and low-income people. The problem of environmental classism extends beyond the scope of the global arena and can be seen when on a smaller scale when observing the disparity between wealthy/middle-class citizens and low-income citizens within nations, individual states, provinces, or cities. [7] Accounting for the fact that smaller less developed nations and impoverished areas have been feeling the impacts of climate change but contributing significantly less to the issue when compared to their wealthier counterparts, eco-imperialists have a condescending and almost arrogant when they create policies and eco-fads that exacerbate our environmental issues. [8] Consider how the global wealthy and middle-class’s push to go “zero-waste” requires buying more products such as fast-fashion, reusable water bottles, mason jars and reusable food containers, eco-fibers, and metal or bamboo cutlery. [9] Following the fuel industry, the fashion industry is the second largest polluting industry as it contributes to 10% of global carbon emission and 85% of the textiles meet their end in landfills around the world. [10] The zero-waste movement promotes using mason jars and glassware to circumnavigate the use of plastics. [11] However, this may not necessarily be better for the environment as companies have discussed that the increased weight of glass increases shipping costs and requires more fuel to transport. [12] Additionally, policies such as the grocery bag ban have the same contradictory effect and punish low-income populations. [13] In 2019 more than 240 states, cities, and counties passed laws banning or taxing grocery bags. [14] Data from the Kilts Center for Market Data at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found trash bag sales typically increased by 120% for 4-gallon bags and 80% for 8-gallon bags six months after the grocery bag ban when into effect. [15] 

Perhaps the best way to address this issue is for each economic class to adopt sustainable practices that address the harms they contribute to the environment. By addressing activities that have a high energy intensity on the earth better solutions that are effective can be created.

This could be done by the wealthy reducing unnecessary transportation. [17] Transportation is one of the most energy-intensive human activities, just by addressing this one category less vehicle fuel is consumed, transportation by air, land, or water is reduced, recreational activities that are energy-intensive are reduced. [18] The middle class could reduce their footprint by letting go of the idea of the suburbs and pushing communities to create or invest in city centers. [19] This would cause less usage of cars because public transport, walking, and biking would be more reasonable modes of transportation. [20]

Environmental harms caused by low-income individuals should be addressed differently as typically these harms are rooted in excessive or unnecessary lifestyle practices. However, because low-income individuals face economic obstacles, they typically are already using public transportation, walking, or bike, they do not take vacations that are environmentally intensive, and many have lived in cities for generations. [21] The harms caused by low-income individuals could be addressed best by local governments engaging in better city planning, increasing urban gardens, and creating and maintaining sustainable housing. For example, impoverished individuals often reside in food deserts leading them to buy packaged food products. [22] Packaged food products contribute to 23% of the material in landfills in the United States. [23] Seeing this issue and the lack of accessible nutritious food to low-income families the Winter Park Farmers Market in Winter Park, Florida allows those with Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and EBT benefits to purchase tokens to exchange for fresh produce. [24]

Written by Jasmine Jackson, EELJ Associate Editor