As someone who is
very interested in social determinants of health, I am realizing every day how
parallel those run to environmental determinants of health. Unfortunately, both
affect the varying social classes at different levels, leaving the communities
with the lowest incomes in the poorest conditions. Although advocacy groups are
an important part of the story, there have been 3 major criticisms of
mainstream environmental law: 1) It doesn’t speak to how environmental harms
and benefits are distributed (speaking to poverty and race); 2) It isn’t
engaged enough with environments such as neighborhoods and workplaces, where we
spend most of our time; 3) It over-values elite forms of advocacy, and doesn’t
leave much room for “popular engagement.”
I started to think
about the ads that Patagonia and Nature Valley (among others) put out, and
realized that all points above are true. While I am so happy big corporations
are dedicated to the environment and the “opt outside” movement, it really
isn’t realistic for everyone to spend their days hiking, climbing, and
backpacking through our amazing national parks. Most of our population spends
the majority of their time in their homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods, and
if these aren’t healthy places, this environmental advocacy doesn’t reach as
far as we hoped. Lower socioeconomic classes and certain ethnic groups are
subject to poorer environmental circumstances, and in turn poorer health
outcomes. Moving forward, I would love to see (and perhaps contribute to) the
mission of core advocacy groups turn towards reducing the disparities in
community health. The Black Lives Movement and the Flint water crisis are only
two news-making events that should fuel the backbone of these discussions.
You pose an excellent point, about how companies are promoting people to get out and hike and whatnot, but they don't necessarily "keep it real". Even though sure, people can get out and go for a jog in their neighborhoods... but if they don't live in a safe neighborhood or if it's too hot outside, what else is there? Go to the gym? Gym memberships are expensive! It seems that there should be marketing brands that need to get on the ball with this... perhaps Nike can make a comeback by contributing to low-income societies and helping kids in schools be more active, change up their thoughts about how they eat, or something of the sort.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting about the three criticisms of environmental laws. It's thought provoking. I don't really understand the last criticism though. What does elite forms of advocacy mean? Is it advocacy that favors the wealthy?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need to improve the environment where we spend most of our times, like school, work, and home. Spending time in nature should be easy, if it's already everywhere in our immediate environment. Environmental policies need to improve the quality especially of low-income neighborhoods.