Going green: don't drop the justice.(TO THE POINT)(environmental justice among people of color)

"THE ENVIRONMENT, FOR US, is defined as where we live, work and play." These were the words Jeanne Gauna, co-director of the SouthWest Organizing Project, spoke as she began training neighborhood residents fighting environmental racism in their communities more than two decades ago. It was a simple and profound statement, and its context informs the environmental justice movement's current dilemma to ensure that poor people and people of color are included in the green movement addressing global climate change.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Environmental justice activists like Jeanne have understood for over three decades the importance of broadening the scope of the environmental movement beyond rivers and birds. We knew then that the key to shifting public consciousness toward living sustainably and in balance with the earth was to include people and the economy as part of the environmental movement's conversation. Narrowly defining the environment limited our vision for change, preventing the collective "us" from putting forward bold proposals and placing our opponents on the defensive.

In 1991, hundreds of people--concerned residents, organizers, scientists, lawyers and academics--developed 17 Principles of Environmental Justice. These principles provided a vision for social change based on equity, justice and sustainability that went beyond race, ethnicity and political borders. The Principles of EJ connected conservation, sustainability, health, workers rights, corporate responsibility and democracy under one big tent. The concept of environmental justice was a direct descendant of the justice frame of the civil rights movement. Now more than 17 years later, elements of our broad vision are being adopted by mainstream "green" advocates. EJ activists may be thrilled that their ideas have seeped into the mainstream consciousness, but we're not. Why? Because we fear that the poor and communities of color are going to be left out of the solutions and may suffer disproportionately from the emerging green economic shift. And we hear very little about justice and equity in the debate over climate change and the fervent efforts underway to transition our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Poor people and people of color were, and in many cases still are, negatively impacted by the efforts of national environmental and conservation groups. In 1990, the SouthWest Organizing Project and 132 organizations signed a letter to the "Group of 10" national environmental and conservation organizations, charging them with environmental racism for leaving people of color out of the process of their policy decisions and not considering the impact their decisions would have on these particular communities. For example, in northern New Mexico, conservation organizations concerned with saving the spotted owl clashed with Chicano communities when a ban on tree cutting also prevented local residents from gathering dead and fallen wood they depended on to heat their homes in the winter.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A few years ago in a controversial paper entitled "The Death of Environmentalism," Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger hypothesized that "the environmental community's narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power." They scolded the environmental movement for "failing to articulate an inspiring and positive vision" and missing opportunities to build alliances by thinking beyond their narrowly defined self-interest. Nordhaus and Schellenberger came to some of the same conclusions EJ leaders did 15 years prior. The question today is whether the "green wave" is repeating history.