[Salma Elmallah, ERG graduate student] 

Photo courtesy of Green 2.0

Every time I encounter an environmental organization, I can’t help but wonder, are they all this overwhelmingly white? I often find myself scanning rooms during talks or workshops and counting the number of minorities. I can usually fit them on one hand. I finally decided to look at the data to see if my firsthand experiences matched the realities of the entire field.

I found a 2014 study by Green 2.0, an initiative focused on racial diversity in environmental organizations, that found that racial minorities constituted less than 16% of boards and general staff of NGOs, government agencies, and grant making foundations, and their positions were concentrated in the lower ranks. As a point of reference, racial minorities made up 38% of the US population at the time of publication. In fact, the only position that minorities were more likely to hold than white people was that of the diversity manager, which only existed at a few organizations.

Photo courtesy of Green 2.0

Organizational leadership often self-reported that the biggest barrier to a more diverse workplace was a lack of minority and low-income applicants. At the same time, only a quarter of organizations in the study offered paid internships, which candidates from low-income backgrounds consistently cite a barrier to entry and advancement. Other minorities interviewed cited barriers like the absence of good mentorship, not being listened to by coworkers, and an institutional attitude that gender diversity - the gains of which primarily went to white women - was an adequate substitute for racial and class diversity.

What does it mean for environmentalism if the people shaping it are mostly white and middle class? For one, an organization’s prioritization of issues stems partly, if not heavily, from the people that compose it. Only 41% of NGOs interviewed in 2014 were likely to support adding issues of interest relevant to low-income or minority communities to their agendas. Employees reported across organizations that attempts to partner with local environmental justice groups were limited. Of the NGOs interviewed, people of colour were especially underrepresented in key decision-making positions, composing less than 5% of board slots and about 12% of leadership positions.

Environmental justice and grassroots organizations often perform better along diversity metrics. Mainstream environmental organizations on the national level benefit from having close ties to industry and government, oversight and monitoring capabilities, and strong, independent research arms. As long as mainstream groups have access to resources and influence that grassroots or environmental justice organizations do not, issues that impact low-income or minority Americans will receive limited attention on a funding and political agenda.

---

At some point during the long stretch between pitching this blog post idea to one of ERG’s patient and enduring blog editors, Anushah, and actually writing it, I was riding BART and noticed anti-immigrant ads plastered throughout Civic Centre Station. When I see bad things, I like to Google everything about them. So I looked up Progressives for Immigration Reform, the organization that funded the ads, and found out that one of their leaders almost succeeded at a 2004 effort to make anti-immigration candidates compose the majority of the Sierra Club’s board. An interview with a Sierra Club leader conducted around the time of the attempted takeover mentions that no red flags were raised about anti-immigrant candidates until 2004. This is strange because it was publicly known that one of the candidates who already had a Sierra Club board appointment during the takeover had also been sitting on the board of an anti-immigration organization for at least two years.

Photo courtesy of SFGate

I filed this discovery away in my head until I finally got around to writing this blog post, when the Sierra Club’s near-xenophobia resurfaced in my memory. I’m not sure how the Sierra Club came so close to having an anti-immigration majority board. It’s possible that, when your organization is dominated by a singular demographic, it becomes harder to recognize such seemingly obvious red-flags. They may never have had to recognize how racists mask their rhetoric with a resonant political message - like the “war on terror”, or being “tough on crime”, or, even, “the fight against climate change” - so voting for a candidate that relates environmental issues to immigrants and overpopulation doesn’t seem transparently xenophobic (even though discussions of population control have an undeniable racist history). Writing this blog post showed me that mainstream environmental organizations are in fact just as white and upper class as I was seeing. This comes at the expense of opportunities for individual employees, and the issues that are deemed important.

When I started this post, I was thinking about what a career looks like for someone whose demographic isn’t well represented in major environmental organizations. Maybe selfishly, I was thinking about what these statistics mean with regards to my imposter syndrome, or a sense of isolation, or career progression. I realized that the demographics of the environmental field can have implications for me, both as a prospective employee and as someone impacted by the agendas and policies. A discussion of environmentalism in the United States is incomplete if it doesn’t address how a lack of diversity informs how we define environmental causes, and how environmental causes can be mobilized.

[Andrea Mercado, MS'15]

At times, our environmental enthusiasm can shine so bright that we overlook less clear implications against low-income and minority populations.

In Marin County, just north of San Francisco, the environmental preservation effort -- enabled by population density restrictions -- has resulted in the segregation of minority groups. The Marin Countywide Plan, adopted in 1973, originally set construction density minimums to as high as one single family residence per 25 acres of land. Zones closer to Highway 101 were designated for higher-density development, while the outskirting zones ranged from one single family residence per acre to 25 acres. The goals of the Plan “are concerned with preserving and enhancing open space, striving for a high quality in the natural environment, and preserving community character and architectural heritage,” (1996).

The first two goals sound perfectly peachy. Who doesn’t want to conserve the quality of the environment? But that last part about preserving the community sheds light on a slightly darker motive about preserving the community esthetic enjoyed by wealthy white residents. If there is one lesson we all know about economics is that lower supply and higher demands increase value. As of 2012, the average single family property value in Marin County has risen by over 72 percent (Zillow). By restricting the development density in Marin County, the Plan has essentially ensured that only wealthy people can afford to live in the county, and primarily in the outskirts. The small amount of multifamily and affordable housing is kept just off the freeway exits, and the people who live there are primarily service workers.

Source: Redefining Progress, Sustainable Sonoma County, Worldwide Fund for Nature, as quoted in the Marin Countywide Plan, adopted November 6, 2007.

In 2003, Marin County adopted the Housing Element into its general plan as required by the state of California. Compliance with the legal requirements to provide affordable housing resulted in the multifamily and affordable housing developed just off the freeway exits. As the Plan states, one of the goals was “to meet diverse housing needs linked to necessary services,” (2007) -- that is the people of color working low wage service jobs for wealthy, mostly white, residents.

This is not an isolated incident of oversight or (as some might argue) it may be blatant racism veiled behind a pro-environmental policy. Suburban environmental preservation density restrictions all over the U.S. keep low income people at a disadvantage or segregated into zones of lower environmental quality. Pair a rise in suburban property values with an increase in gentrification of inner cities, and low income families are left with no where to go.

While the preservation of the natural environment is a mission we as ERGies should always strive for, it is important to also uphold our mission to social justice by being critical of environmental policy and research by removing our green-colored glasses.

[Top Image: Brocken Inaglory]

Note: The views expressed here belong solely to the author of each entry and are not representative of the position of the Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley.

[by Sharada Prasad CS, ERG PhD Candidate] 

 

Please watch the below video and make a note of your reaction.



Either you were amused by it or you felt a pain deep inside your heart.

Who are the people who pee in public? It’s mostly the people who work in the informal sector i.e. people who don’t work in offices or inside any building for eight hours. 94% of India’s workforce is linked to informal sector which includes construction workers, rickshaws pullers, coolies, courier boys, drivers, roadside vendors ( the list is endless) . The people who laugh (mock?) in the above video might not have engaged themselves in any activity that keeps them outdoor 8-10 hours in a day. They all appear to be either middle or upper class Indians who have the luxury of toilet access both at their residence and workplace. If empathetic enough, one can see harassment, borderline violence rather, in the above video instead of the intended amusement.

In a country with 400 million people working in un-organized sector, public toilets must be found within minutes of walking distance. The problem with urban India is that sanitation is never a priority. The municipality or corporation has no pressure from the public, especially middle class and upper class, to maintain the existing toilets, and has no money to buy/rent space in a newly developed financial neighbourhood to install toilets.

Even the toilets in railway stations and bus stations are not well maintained as there is no accountable structure in the organization to provide basic sanitation services. You will not see the phone number of any officer who is responsible to keep the toilets clean. The officials hide behind the thick veil of bureaucracy.

Yes, providing good sanitation facility comes at a cost. But lack of provision costs much more to the society. The social and health cost of lack of sanitation is not borne by all sections of society equally. The poor mostly bear the burden while the middle class or upper class insulate themselves from such woes. India cannot come out of the mess of lack of sanitation in public areas unless there is focus on accountability and enough political pressure from upper and middle class.

Dear “Pissing tanker” – Your understanding of public urination is distorted and your actions perverted. Please stop making fun of people who don’t have access to toilets. Your insensitivity towards the helplessness of people is appalling. Most people who are peeing in public are already vulnerable. You don’t have any right to humiliate those people further. If you can, please give them directions to the nearest decent public toilet, if you can find one. If you are so inclined to pee, try peeing inside a public office instead of aiming water cannons at people. You might get the attention of right people!

Cross-post from Sharada's personal blog.

Note: The views expressed here belong solely to the author of each entry and are not representative of the position of the Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley.

[by Yang Ruan, ERG MA/MPP Student]  

 

The Atlantic has published another great article by Ta-Nehisi Coates called "The Case for Reparations."

The wealth gap and continued segregation of African Americans is the legacy of centuries of exploitation by white Americans.

"When we think of white supremacy, we picture Colored Only signs, but we should picture pirate flags."

The exploitation starts with slavery but continues via housing practices and other predatory activities. In the meantime it seems like the continued de facto segregation is causing all non-African Americans to be completely ignorant of and detached from African American communities. They point to the handful of successful black Americans as proof that racism is no longer an issue rather than correctly recognizing them as the exceptional.

"...They ignore the long tradition of this country actively punishing black success"

"Some black people always will be twice as good. But they generally find white predation to be thrice as fast."

"...for all our exceptional ones, for every Barack and Michelle Obama, for every Ethel Weatherspoon or Clyde Ross, for every black survivor, there are so many thousands gone."

Coates' article calls for passing HR 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, a bill by Congressman John Conyers Jr., who represents the Detroit area. The commission would study slavery and its lingering effects as well as recommendations for “appropriate remedies.”

I really hope people read this, including immigrants who need a deeper understanding of the historical context for the social issues in the US.

Even though I am fairly aware of many problems black Americans face, I was jarred by the specifics detailed in the article. It highlights the importance of having patience for people you don't understand and communities you aren't immersed in. Also, the article illustrates that many problems are systemic just as fairness is systemic. One person's success or failure cannot prove that America is finally fair or not. America will be fair only when a person gets as much encouragement, opportunities regardless of their race, class, or gender, but also no more likely than the next to get swindled or judged.

Cross-post from Yang's personal blog.


Note: The views expressed here belong solely to the author of each entry and are not representative of the position of the Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley.

[By Pierce Gordon]  

A packed house for Inequality for All screening, with Reich, Kornbluth, and Brady on the stage, fielding questions.

In a way, Robert Reich has been trying to do so for his entire career, as a Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy, and previous secretary of labor in the Clinton Administration. His recent movie, Inequality for All, which was shown on February 5th, 2014, to a sold out crowd of 700 people in the Wheeler Hall Auditorium. The director Jacob Kornbluth, and the Dean of the Public Policy School, Henry Brady, moderated the after-movie discussion.

After the movie, the crowd asked Reich about many questions about the many different social intersections of economic inequality: racial inequality, the true potential impact of labor unions, the presence of inflation, and many other concepts. One thing was apparent during the question-and-answer portion of the night; even off the big screen, Reich can command a room, even one as large as Wheeler Auditorium.

Over his experienced profession, Reich has used many tools at his disposal to get out his message about fixing the American economy. If you visit his website, you’re instantly bombarded with his blog posts, his television appearances with the Colbert Report and the Daily Show, and his own personal explanatory videos about low wage workers, inequality, immigration reform, and many other topics.

The movie, which won both the Special Jury prize at the Sundance film festival and the Audience Award for the Best Documentary at the Traverse City film festival, deftly mixes Reich’s expert economic opinion about the current and historical state of the political economy, with the teaching of the Berkeley class, Inequality and Poverty, alongside aspects of his own personal memoir.

What’s the most artistic part of the movie? In fact, it’s the way these three seemingly unrelated topics come together to tell a whale of an economic tale. To the average movie goer, Inequality for All might contain more graphs, develop more relationships, and explain more about money, than any event they've seen. And yet, somehow the movie fits it all together using Reich’s natural stage presence and their constantly evolving storyline. These separate parts of the narrative become deeply ingrained cogs of an economic engine: economic inequality, labor unions, tax policy, globalization, technological development, and many other parts. Interestingly, the confluence of Reich’s experience, his life story, and his Berkeley course functions just as effortlessly.

Such quality, however, is not due to Reich’s life work and nimble delivery; for this, the genius of the director cannot be overstated. Though it seems to be a party where Reich is the master of ceremonies, if one looks deeper, one can find out how much influence the director had on the movie’s progression. Kornbluth explains his main motives on the Inequality for All website: “I decided my goal with this film, first and foremost, was to take a conceptual and abstract topic and find a way to tell an approachable and human story about it.” In his words, during the question portion, he stated "You have to believe in the messenger to believe in the message." That belief is necessary, then, to incite a movement to jump-start our economy.

Reich stated that he understands that economic change of which he advocates for requires conversation with, and motivation from, diverse communities. In the same breath, he goes from lecturing to his UC Berkeley course, to conversing with Republican laborers about the importance of worker lobbying, to chopping it up with venture capitalists. In a way, it’s a visual example of one particular thing; for our economy to work, we need buy-in from each of these disparate groups, to move forward towards common goals.

Even if one doesn’t agree with Reich’s suggestions, you must agree that inequality has become a massive issue in our society. Reich includes conversation about the passionate Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party protests, and adds such protests are symptoms of our communities being upset with inequality on large scales. Even President Obama recently stated in his recent State of the Union address, that 'Inequality is the defining issue and challenge of our time.' Needless to say, this isn’t an issue to take lightly.

The solutions to these issues, however, won't come as easy. He states: "The issue is at a point where there is a possibility...It can be tackled. It's not an easy answer; there has to be a movement..."

Well, one thing can be made for sure: whether Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, the points made in the new movie are hard to put down. Watching the movie, might be your first step.

Interested in learning more about Inequality for All? Check out the website here.

The views expressed here belong solely to the author of this entry and are not representative of the position of the Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley.