Just Garbage
Students name:
Institution Affiliation:

Just Garbage
The Environmental racism that disproportionates shares of environmental hazards is evident in the United States. Toxic wastes illegally dumped and legally stored in land associated to the poor and nonwhite community. Economic discrimination influenced choosing where to dump the toxic wastes. The less disadvantaged people, with little income and probably none, are affected by this since they can only afford to stay in the least desirable neighborhoods compared to their wealthy counterparts. Economic discrimination as described is necessary and does not infringe on the rights of people. Toxic wastes result from manufacturing processes. Manufacturing is important as it satisfy the demand of the people. Our economy requires consumer demand to keep people working to meet the ever increasing demand, which results in more waste produced. This makes it justifiable to dump the waste in settlements of low-income earners making them suffer the burden of toxic wastes. Libertarianism claims that individuals have the right to be free from interference from other people. Burdens imposed by other individuals are unjustifiable and no person not consented should be burdened by burial of toxic wastes. This, however, is not possible to achieve because of our civilization that relies on modern life. Securing every individual’s consent is impractical. If duly informed of the hazard, someone affected is bound to object making the placement of wastes illegitimate but eventually waste will need to be dumped. Dumping wastes, where residents accept in return for monetary payment is a suggested approach to stopping environmental discrimination. Market transactions often satisfactory commensurate burdens and benefits. Whole communities, acting as corporate bodies would have to contract with those seeking to bury wastes but in our societies individuals are bound to veto the transaction resulting in the impasse attending libertarian approaches. This approach does not provide equal consideration to everyone interest. In the long run dumping the waste without paying anybody for it or confirming with the locals is justified. Cost-benefit analysis characteristically requires toxic wastes dumped near poor people. Such placements usually have small land rates and are hence cheap. Land that is already cheap cannot lose as much value as property that is expensive, where wealthy people live. Waste dumped in poor man’s land minimizes loss of social wealth. This makes it justifiable since polluting all areas reducing value is not wise, rather degrading already degraded land and preserving what is in good shape.
Environmental racism can not end altogether. Implementation of the proposals to eradicate it requires judgment, in particular, until racism ends, such judgment will predictably be exercised on the disadvantaged minority populations. People of color currently burdened by environmental racism are less wealthy. Implementing the proposal would remove eighty to ninety percent of the effects of environmental racism. Reducing the burdens of racism is commonly advantageous to people of color. Such reductions are especially worthy when integral to policies that improve distributive justice.