28 A Movement Rooted in Resistance, Hope, and Equity

Overview

This chapter introduces Environmental Justice (EJ) as not just a policy statement, but a grassroots movement that became prevalent as a result of struggles that emerged during the civil rights era. It assesses how harm to the environment specifically in states, is distributed unequally—along diverse factors of race, geography, and class—and positions the reader to better understand why marginalized communities (like those in Cancer Alley, the prison system, or the Global South) are routinely the first and most impacted from environmental discrepancies.

The Environmental Justice movement emerged from the convergency of civil rights advocacy and environmental concerns in the 60s and 70s. Communities of POC low-income status groups began to notice and combat the disproportionate environmental obstructions they encountered on a day-to-day basis. This eventually resulted in organized efforts to actively fight against environmental racism.

One of the earliest and most notable examples of environmental injustice is “Cancer Alley”, known for its dense population of petrochemical plants and refineries. This is a critical instance where environmental issues intersect with the incorporation of systemic racism and its effect on U.S. Federal policies. As a result of negligence from state authorities to serve underrepresented communities like the predominantly Black communities housed in these regions, Cancer Alley has gone down in American Environmental History with record breaking increases in cancer rates amidst environmental damage. It is not a surprise  that places like Cancer Alley have gone this long without government intervention. Due to prolonged exposure to these harmful toxins, national and international scrutinization have become a product of poor environmental management (Song & Younes, 2022).

Similarly, the prison system in the United States has been recognized as a major sit of environmental injustice. Many prisons located near hazardous waste sites or industrial locations, continue to expose incarcerated people to toxic water, heavily-polluted air, and other contingent environment hazards (Prison Policy Initiative, 2022).

In the Global South, environmental justice problems often intersect with historical cycles of colonialism and repetitive economic exploitation. Countries in this region tend to experience the brunt of environmental corruption and climate change pay-offs, despite the lowest contribution to global emissions (E-International Relations, 2023).

The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement started as a response to the unequal environmental strains faced by trivialized communities, particularly communities with prevalent low-income and racially diverse populations. Beginning with resistance against environmental racism, this movement reflects hope for equitable treatment amidst contingent time periods in American history where environmental decision-making was at the forefront of policy enactment. This chapter answers the key events, historical context, and groundbreaking principles that have shaped the EJ movement, highlighting its relevance to the status quo in the pursuit of social and environmental equity.

Historical Context and Origins

The Environmental Justice movement sparked at the convergence of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and the early environmental movement, as diverse communities started to connect toxic exposure and decisions regarding land-use to systemic racism and disenfranchisement (EPA, n.d.). In 1982, a predominantly Black community located in Warren County, North Carolina, orchestrated protests against a hazardous-waste landfill site that attracted national attention, leading to the coined term of Benjamin Chavis: “Environmental Racism” (NRDC, n.d.). This exemplifies stimulated grassroots strategizing and building the foundation of the movement by emphasizing how race was the strongest predictor of hazardous site locations—intenser than income or other socioeconomic elements.

In October 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held in Washington, D.C., attracting over 300 activists in support of the adoption of the 17 Principles of Environmental Justice, which grounded the movement’s ethical and tactical approach (EJnet.org, 1991). These formalized principles demanded community self-determination, the right to live in same environments, and the need for both local action and regimented accountability. Shortly after this movement’s upbringing, academic assessments such as the UCC’s “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States” provided compelling evidence that race was indeed the primary factor in determining the calculated distribution of toxic sites across the nation (United Church of Christ, 1987).

By 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responded to the extreme pressure by finding the Office of Environmental Equity (eventually renamed the Office of Environmental Justice), which started mapping EJ concerns and forming outreach programs (EPA, 1992). The movement began to hold significant institutional weight when former President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 (1994), mandating that all federal agencies enforce EJ considerations into their respective policies (Executive Order No. 12898, 1994). These notable milestones turned EJ from grassroots protests to a recognized priority in U.S. environmental policy implementation.

Over the past few decades, EJ scholarship became more sophisticated, incorporating public-health data (for example, cancer cluster or asthma rates) and legal theory to address sizing, permit processes, and disparities in enforcement. Activists formulated “inside-outside” strategies—morphing formal litigation with protests—and created alliances across racial, economic, and geographic groups, laying out the blueprint for modern-day multifaceted environmental justice channels.

Principles and Frameworks 

The roots of environmental justice rely on meaningful engagement and equitable treatment: no group should experience unfair shares of environmental injustice, and communities should have critical influence over decisions that may affect their living conditions. The 17 Principles adopted in 1991 break down rights to clean air, water, and soil; self-determination from communities; and an end to economic and racial disparity in environmental law (EJnet.org, 1991).

In recent years, environmental justice regulations have integrated sections like climate justice to incorporate greenhouse-gas mitigation and adaptive strategies with central focuses to achieve social equity. This ethical approach recognizes that marginalized communities are often burdened with the worst impacts of both air pollution and climate disrupt ion. Heat islands, excessive flooding, and vector-borne diseases—call for legislation that recognize both the socioeconomic and environmental susceptiveness.

Community-driven representatives present another environmental justice evolutionary practice: residents identify notable environmental problems and local health statistics (e.g. frequency rates for respiratory hospitalization or lead in soil), collect data with authorized NGO partners or academic institutions, and utilize findings to mandate regulatory action. Projects such as the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project show how intersected participating research can build a foundation of accountability and capacity on the local level (WOEIP, n.d.).

Legal specialists and NGOs have also presented human-rights-based frameworks, stating that access to healthy environments is an essential right protected under international legislation. This lens has educated legal experts in countries like Columbia (the right to a healthy environment legislation) and India (the right to clean air rulings), demonstrating the global influence EJ concepts have on the world. This further suggests the need to prioritize equitable environmental protection and sustainability on a state and national level.

Finally, many cities have now engraved environmental justice comprehensive plans through Equity Zones, Green Infrastructure Grants, and calculated budgeting. These strategies have helped prevalent cities in the U.S. like Seattle, Washington and San Francisco, California. These local initiatives demonstrate how EJ principles pour into concrete policies, from school programs targeting safe routes for students to urban agriculture.

State-Level EJ Cases and Global Implications 

In 2025, Hawaii and Michigan filed landmark lawsuits against big name oil companies—seeking compensation regarding damages and harmful climate effects. This marked the first time U.S. states sued fossil fuel companies for their contribution to global warming. Shortly afterwards, the Justice Department presented a case suing to block the continuation of these cases, arguing that the federal government had the authority to litigate climate issues under the Clean Air Act—a federal-state clause that underscores jurisdiction-based tensions amidst environmental justice enforcement (Reuters, 2025).

These state-level cases resonate within the global spectrum: they alert other jurisdictions to analyze climate-liability suits and add information in treaty negotiation documents addressing transboundary pollution (the transportation of pollution via the atmosphere from one country/region to another). For instance, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights introduced an inquiry investigating major fossil-fuel firms’ contributions to rise in sea-levels. This relates to a greater extent with similar issues like those in Hawaii and Michigan (CIEL, 2022).

In the midst of this drastic shift in environmental impacts and accountability discourse, federal opposition to these state-based initiatives has pressured international NGOs to demand implementation of stronger protections per the Paris Agreement. This agreement urges that countries hold corporations and government sectors accountable for harmful releases of emissions. This agenda has also informed the upbringing of the Escazú Agreement in Latin America. This proposal engraved rights to access environmental information and justice by legal means—and whose principles resonate with the traditional principles from the 1991 Summit (CEPAL, n.d.).

Moreover, local-level victories—like the Hawaiian ban on new fossil-fuel infrastructure projects and Michigan’s Environemntal Justice Mapping tool—are expressed and taught globally via EJ networks. These networks play a contingent role in enabling communities in places like India, Brazil, and South Africa to practice strategies that fit their personal lives. These informative and helpful exchanges transnationally exemplify the ability state-level environmental justice actions enable policy improvements far beyond the United States.