Environmental Injustice in Homer, LA Case Study

Environmental Injustice in Homer, LA Case Study

Aaron Sweazy

Concordia University of Nebraska

Public Health Ethics

MPH 560

Dr. Shalah Watkins-Bailey

October 12, 2014

ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE IN HOMER, LA CASE STUDY 5

Environmental Injustice in Homer, LA Case Study

Why would various parties want to locate a uranium-enrichment facility in Homer? Why might a multinational corporation want to build such a facility there? Why might residents welcome or oppose such a plan? Why would local businessmen or politicians welcome or oppose such a plan? Why would teachers, school administrators, and others concerned with public services welcome or oppose the building of such a facility?

I would guess the reasoning for parties to want to locate a facility of this nature to Homer, it would be because other types of facilities have had success in terms of building in lower socio-economic areas. I would suspect a corporation would want to build there for the likelihood of cheap land and furthermore the potential of cheap labor once the facility is complete. The plan would be welcomed by politicians because of the potential of revenue to the community and growth, while opposition may come due to the spread of toxins or the death of natural vegetation due to urban sprawl. Likewise public service individuals may oppose due to the welfare of children and the potential of not being allowed to have outdoor recess because of the dangers of the nearby facility. Welcoming of the facility may be because of the taxation to the facility may create newer schools which are more up to date with safety and technology standards.

Why would “outsiders,” like environmental activists take an interest in Homer and the Claiborne facility? Who are the outsiders and insiders in cases of potential environmental pollution, and which should have the greater “say” in decisions about building a potential polluter? Why?

If the potential of the facility causes damage to local flora of fauna then the trickle-down effect could also affect human lives as well. Insiders would be the local government and people that reside in Homer who have immediate interest invested. Outsiders could be those of the Environmental Protection Agency or Fish and Game Departments for example. I think the decision should be made by the insiders, but only after a full investigation is conducted and both sides provide their side facility’s pros/cons. I think this is necessary so uneducated opinions aren’t made, but then if the “wrong choice” happens it can fall back on the locals. However, I can see it as the outsiders need to make the decision too, especially if there is a trickle down affect that results in the food chain seeing significant problems.

What data should inform a decision about whether to build? In addition to scientific data about the facility and its environmental impact, what other data are relevant? How certain or uncertain are these data? In the presence of scientific, economic, social, or other uncertainty, who should bear the burden of proof and why?
Factual data (not skewed to sway) should be used to formulate a decision. Other data that could be relevant is the effect it could potentially have on property values. This data could be fairly uncertain in the beginning, but if there is a comparable community which has gone through this type of building, then property values could be approximated. The burden of proof should fall back on the company desiring the willingness to build. They must beyond a shadow of a doubt assure the local community that their lives would not be in jeopardy or change much.

Can a community give informed consent to the initiation of a project like building the Claiborne facility? How would such consent be similar to a process of individual informed consent, and how would it differ? Consider what is discussed in Module 4 on community-based practice and research and on the process of sharing power within communities. Which methods discussed in that module might be useful in Homer?

I think informed consent would have to happen only if the individuals were educated in the matter, otherwise you would be taking advantage of a population which is unethical. Similar in the fact you would need to know all of the pros and cons before making a decision, the differences would be the fact an entire community would have to give their verdict on the situation. Shared Governance should occur in Homer with all groups and individuals that could be affected by the facility being erected in the community.

What would need to be disclosed and to whom in order for the community of Homer to make an informed decision about building the Claiborne facility? Are all of the issues to be disclosed factual, or are there ethical assumptions that need to be disclosed as well? Who represents the community in such a decision? Is it the community’s decision to make?

Consider some of the issues raised in Module 2 on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and issues of race. What role does the predominant race of the residents of Homer play in the siting of the Claiborne facility there? Would you argue that the facility will benefit those of a minority group, African-Americans, or would you argue that they are being singled out to bear an environmental burden?

All of the potential risks associated to the well-being of individuals, flora and fauna as well as the property values which could be affected should be disclosed before proceeding with construction of the facility. All issues should be factual and ethical, to me if you aren’t being factual and lie about it that is not ethical, that is fraudulent. The community would probably be represented by elected official both locally and state wide (if need be) and environmental aids. It is the communities decision partially to make the call if deemed so by the state departments of health and environmental agencies as well in my opinion. Unfortunately if you look at communities with factories in it, notice the rich white folks have golf courses in their back yards, not smog factories.

Identify the ethical problem(s) relevant to the decision

Building a facility in an area that is very poor and one of the lowest socio-economically speaking in the United States.

Assess the factual information available to the decision maker(s)

Free informed consent was skewed, mainly white locals were polled and not the neaby individuals who were black.

Identify the "stakeholders" in the decision

Stakeholders in the decision would be the citizens of Homer as well as Henry Payner, Daniel Wigley and Kristin Shrader-Frechette as their opinions are on the line.

Identify the values at stake in the decision

The potential for a better local economy, potential for a deterrence of continued health growth of flora and fauna.

Identify the options available to the decision maker

The options would be to accept the facility and allowed it to be build, or fight it off and keep the community as it is, free of the facility.

Consider the process for making the decision and the values that pertain to the process.

The process would have to be made with all sides being explored with all factual information as well.