Environmental justice and harm to humans - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 40

The precautionary principle has been integrated into the regulatory
and legal frameworks of the European Union, but has been less popular
in the US.
From a social movement perspective the preferred emphasis when it
comes to precaution is to err on the side of human safety and wellbeing
rather than industrial development. As Bullard (2005b: 28) observes:
It asks 'How little harm is possible?' rather than 'How much
harm is allowable?' This principle demands that decision
makers set goals for safe environments and examine all
available alternatives for achieving the goals, and it places
the burden of proof of safety on those who propose to use
inherently dangerous and risky technologies.
Moreover, the environmental social justice framework requires that
those 'parties applying for operating permits for landfills, incinerators,
smelters, refineries, chemical plants, and similar operations must
prove that their operations are not harmful to human health, will
not disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities and other
protected groups, and are nondiscriminatory' (Bullard, 2005b: 28-9).
Environmental victimisation can be defined as specific forms of harm
that are caused by acts or omissions leading to the presence or absence
of environmental agents which are associated with human injury
(Williams, 1996). It is important to distinguish between environmental
issues that affect everyone, and those that disproportionately affect
specific individuals and groups (see Williams, 1996; Low and Gleeson,
1998). As mentioned above, in some instances, there may be a basic
equality of victims, in that some environmental problems threaten
everyone, as in the case, for example, of ozone depletion, global
warming, air pollution and acid rain (Beck, 1996). Even here, though,
research has shown disproportionate negative effects according to
factors such as class, caste, race and gender (Shiva, 2008).
Patterns of differential victimisation are also evident with respect
to the siting of toxic waste dumps, extreme air pollution, chemical
accidents, access to safe clean drinking water and so on (see Chunn
et al, 2002; Saha and Mohai, 2005; Williams, 1996). Basically it is the
poor and disadvantaged who suffer disproportionately from such
environmental inequalities.
Another dimension of victimisation relates to the subjective
disposition and consciousness of the people involved. The specific
groups who experience environmental problems may not always
describe or see the issues in strictly environmental terms. This may be