Cameron Diaz Talks Going Green; Skirts Around Environmental Racism
by Latoya Peterson
In this month’s Marie Claire, Cameron Diaz is gracing the cover and bringing a message. The popular starlet has embraced the environment as her new motivation, and is doing a low budget movie/documentary about the state of our fair planet.
The reporter follows Diaz to her old neighborhood in Long Beach, California, noting that her town is “dominated by a behemoth polluter.” Cameron’s childhood memories are tinged with flames from the nearby refinery, the dust that was ever present, and the childhood asthma she experienced.
However, she seems singularly focused on how individuals impact their environment:
Once she has eased people past the shock of encountering her (”Hi, I’m Cameron!”), she drops into a low, wide-leg stance so she’s eye-to-eye with her less willowy interviewees – high school girls, the Latino father of a young boy, a science teacher – then launches into a series of questions while the cameras roll: Do you know where your food, your water come from? Do you worry about the environment? What would it take for you to become more involved? And while people do seem to care, they also indicate a feeling of powerlessness. What, after all, can one person do? Then there is the problem of illegal immigrants – and there are many in this area – being decidedly disinclined to draw attention to themselves by registering complaints about air quality.
But the showstopper is a woman we meet a bit later who lives in a little house in full view of the refinery, who tells Diaz about the morning a sulfur-holding tank at the plant exploded, the still mysterious condition that led to her young son’s open heart surgery, the spike in depression and suicides in the neighborhood, the six-figure payoff one family received when their son was diagnosed with leukemia…
And yet, with unmistakable pride, the woman turns around and lifts her shirt to show us the name of the neighborhood tattooed in large black Gothic letters across the small of her back. Because this, despite everything, is home.
Diaz’s next statement was frustratingly familiar to me as an anti-racist who also has a deep eco-streak. After listing through dozens of environmental slights coming from a corporation and understanding why many residents would not want to call attention to themselves, she still goes on to say:
“I want to leave you with this thought,” Diaz says to the woman. After all you’ve told me…what would it take for you to do something to change your environment?” The woman, speechless, looks like she’s going to cry.
One of my longstanding issues with the green movement is how it does not really engage with communities of color. The issues described are often perpetuated and controlled by corporate interests, and yet the onus is put squarely on the individual. Sometimes, the state contributes to the sorry state of affairs. This is what we mean with the term environmental racism.
Racewire recently put up a blog post titled “To Breathe Free,” detailing the struggles with asthma in New York City that are related to race and class:
One New York advocacy group is putting a spotlight on kids today who struggle to overcome the odds just to breathe. In a report on housing conditions and asthma, Make the Road New York says families of color are made more vulnerable to asthma by suffocatingly substandard housing conditions—apartments marred with crumbling walls, roaches, and moldy air. City health authorities have reported epidemic asthma rates in adults and children, with clear links to race. As the leading cause of school absence and hospitalization for children 14 years and younger, the illness aggravates a multitude of other economic and educational hardships in Black and Latino neighborhoods.
The report reflects the findings of an in-depth 2008 study linking asthma not only to race and ethnicity, but also to poor housing conditions and living environments. The community’s “cohesion” makes a difference as well: fears about being out on the street may force parents to keep their children in the house, exposing them to internal threats instead.
The other problem with dropping the onus on the individual is that many people in the contemporary green movement have adopted the environment as their flagship issue. What they do not realizing that many of us do care about the Earth – but it isn’t the most pressing issue on our own personal lists.
In contrast, take Kerry Washington’s video about the importance of environmental awareness and personal responsibility:
While Washington also goes for the personal responsibility angle, she places it on the shoulders of those who are already agitating for change. She encourages viewers not to forget that just because your neighborhood is free of pollution, an area two miles away may still be struggling with the same issue. As she says in the video “we need to be thinking about other neighborhoods too [...] people need to remember that local can be the other side of the tracks, or the other side of the freeway. That’s still your community.”
Word. I can understand Diaz’s message and her passion, but the method feels like more of the same. Yes, we can all do better in a pursuit of a greener world – but we shouldn’t lose sight of the mega-polluters who find shelter for their crimes in communities that are ill equipped to fight back.
In order to move forward the conversation about the environment, we will need to start looking at the whole issue, not just mainstream friendly pieces. And then, we can truly start down the path to eco-justice.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Jeremy wrote:
“The other problem with dropping the onus on the individual is that many people in the contemporary green movement have adopted the environment as their flagship issue.”
Personally, I find this to be the most problematic aspect of the green movement. Sometimes, to me at least, it seems like the enviro-friendly folks invariably forget that not everyone can eat organic, not everyone can ride a bike to work, etc etc.
I wrote a bit about this recently, equating environmentalism with political white privilege. I’ve been thinking more about it and have re-tooled my thoughts in light of this piece by Latoya. For me, it was like “Going Green is cool, but c’mon why can’t you tie this in with other social justice issues?”
There’s so much political inequality that it’s disheartening for folks like Diaz to ignore/forget that some communities don’t have the capacity to make these demands–and building this capacity is as much a concern as getting them to use it to leverage greater eco-justice.
I think the best part of this piece was making sure we “don’t lose sight of the mega-polluters who find shelter for their crimes in communities that are ill equipped to fight back.” Tackling this–rather than a broad ideal of “environmentalism” alone–allows us to tackle pollution and structural inequality simultaneously. This was a great thought.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶
Lopes wrote:
I understand what this article is trying to get at about the corporate interest in holding individuals responsible for environmental issues, but this article is a little disappointing, to say the least. I’m not saying that Diaz isn’t out-of-touch, but this article completely ignores the fact that she is a Latina and grew up in a Latino-dominated and poor neighborhood (long before LB got hip). Maybe Diaz thought that she was empowering the people who lived in her former neighborhood? I don’t know, I wouldn’t trust Diaz to be an intelligent advocate for anything. I just hate it when websites that are supposedly aware of racial issues completely embrace the mainstream whiteification of Cameron Diaz and don’t even consider the fact that she might be a woman of color.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:21 pm ¶
Kandeezie wrote:
“After all you’ve told me…what would it take for you to do something to change your environment?” – Cameron makes me laugh!!
She might as well have said “I know you own that plant across your street, now shut it down!!” or “I don’t care that people around you are dying because of some factory, you march over there right now and demand that they save the baby seals in the Yukon!” as if the camera lights have blinded her thoughts
It makes NO sense. None!
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:22 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
Good post, and you bring up issues that many eco-activists and pretty much everybody else, need to hear about. I never even thought about the racism involved with being green.
I read a BBC article a while back ago about people reaching out to low income neighborhoods in Detroit and encouraged its residents to grow vegetables and plants in neighborhood gardens, which have been successful. (I’m not really sure if that’s related to “eco-justice” but oh well)
That’s one way of getting the community go green while also making it easy, accessible, and a good, learning experience.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:31 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
@ Latoya,
I think one issue PoC may face in drawing attention to the disparate effects of environmental behaviors along racial lines is the label of “racism”. It is a loaded term and I don’t think is a good fit. The Wikipedia entry on Environmental Racism your link directs to includes this phrase: the intentional or unintentional targeting of minority communities. But I don’t think actions with unintended racial consequences and intentional actions influnced solely or primarily by race should be lumped together.
I understand that consequences on a PoC community might be one and the same but I think in terms of helping people understanding the problems and motivations of the actors, the problem may need to be labeled differently or distinguished where necessary.
I personally think the word racism is currently being abused, which has resulted in an attempt by the right to co-opt it for its own purposes.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Great piece! I too have enormous frustration with this issue. I would broaden it to both environmental racism and environmental classism, which I think operate in a lot of similar ways, and obviously overlap a lot too.
I have an enormous proportion of friends who do environmental work, and I can’t figure out if somehow all the young bright progressive (white) people in this country find the environment more important than social justice, or if it’s just a coincidence that I’ve fallen in with a bunch of enviros.
Either way I can’t help but think that if as much attention and energy and enthusiasm went to anti-racism as I see going to environmental protection, there would be some real changes happening, where instead people actually take Frank Ricci seriously.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
SayNay wrote:
Glad to see we’re bringing more articles on aspects of the Green movement to Racialicious! Definitely hope to see more.
Cameron Diaz has always been out of touch so seeing this is no surprise to me. The first chance of mainstream fame she got, she denounced any of her Long Beach connection in a Vanity Fair article back in the 90s (it’s my hometown, so maybe I’m a little more sensitive about it). It’s all too convenient for her to pick it back up around this cause considering the city’s main sources of pollution are the port and refineries that stretch from the west edge of the city to San Pedro. I don’t even think she cares that certain parts of the city are populated by some of the most diverse, but also low-income people in the state.
I think we all should do what we can (emphasis on “Can” because as we know all are not able) in the Green movement, but the conversation definitely needs to move personal responsibility to social justice around sustainable communities, in which many communities of color are neglected.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 1:14 pm ¶
brownskinlady wrote:
OMG, yes. Thanks for articulating the major beef I’ve had with the environmental movement. I’ve noticed similar symptoms in (white, often male) activists engaged on the topic of climate change. Apparently climate change and the environment is an issue that binds us ALL universally–however, it’s clear that the solutions and activism built around these issues is not universal. It is colored with the same hierarchies that every other issue is…
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 1:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Lopes -
I had expected to write something about Cameron’s heritage in the article. But there wasn’t anything. No references to her heritage, her connection…just the idea that people don’t care. The article goes on for a few more pages, but still doesn’t do anything.
Now, it is entirely possible that the author of the article cut those references, but I’ve seen Cameron Diaz doing other awareness raising things and she just doesn’t bring up her race, let alone racial aspects of anything.’
Now, I’m not intimately familiar with Diaz’s career so I may be missing something. But I don’t recall her having the issues Jessica Alba had with how she identifies nor do I remember her proactively bringing up her race except to say “I’m a Latina.” But there wasn’t enough info for me to discuss Diaz and race.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
Ruchama wrote:
Thank you for this. I tend to approach environmental issues from a food/health perspective (since that’s where my interest is), and something that I constantly see in those sorts of discussions is a total lack of acknowledgment that, in lots of poor neighborhoods, not only are there no organic fruits and vegetables, there are practically no fresh fruits and vegetables. If we want to get people to eat more organic stuff, we’ve got to work on the entire structure of food distribution, as well as WIC and food stamps and school lunches. Factory farming, agricultural subsidies, supermarket placement, zoning, WIC, food stamps, school lunches, farmers markets, and so on, are all interconnected, and working on just one of those issues without addressing the others makes no sense.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 1:50 pm ¶
Ana wrote:
Cameron Diaz is only half Cuban–her father is second generation Cuban while her mother is European, making her of mixed ethnicity. There are plenty of White people in Cuba, so perhaps her father is European. If you look at her appearance, it’s more than probable that her father is also European.
Why is it not a problem when someone of mixed race/ethnicity identifies with PoC but it is when they identify with White people? I thought that they were free to identify as they wish.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 2:02 pm ¶
WhatANightmare wrote:
Great post. The shaming that environmentalists do is crazy. You cannot talk down at someone, wagging your finger and talking about all the great things that you do and they aren’t doing and expect them to respond positively. And they all seem to assume that POC and those in poverty don’t know anything about going green and “doing the right things.” Often, that patronizing attitude makes people more inclined to keep doing as they do.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
@ Ruchama: Well said
@9jah: I think that racism is an entirely appropriate term in this context. Classism fits in there too, but just think about the current trendy aspect of the green movement. Even the video that Latoya embedded is from Lexus! It is becoming increasingly chic in upper-middle class white households to “go green,” as evidenced by large corporations marketing “green” products. Used to be you could only find biodegradable detergent in a place like Whole Foods, and now it’s in my small hometown’s Spartan Store.
The implied racism and classism in my opinion comes from the fact that when someone like Diaz says that it is all about personal responsibility and what you can do, she is talking out of her ass. If you want to talk carbon footprints, anyone who is part of the film industry is throwing rocks from a fragile glass house. And it is certainly not just celebrities like her or Alec Baldwin, it’s also self-righteous elitist-but-pretend-to-like-poor-people environmentalists. In reality, people without access to a lot of resources generally have very little impact on the environment on a personal level when compared to the middle class on up. They live in smaller spaces, eat less food, buy fewer products, use public transportation, and don’t fly anywhere. The woman with the tattoo that Diaz confronts has a smaller carbon footprint than the starlet. And certainly less political clout when it comes to holding industries responsible for their impact on the environment.
The animosity that I see expressed towards underprivileged people of all races and particularly underprivileged people of color when it comes to environmentalism on a regular basis is disgustingly self-centered and short sighted. When you refuse to acknowledge someone’s inability to access basic needs and support, how can you be so smug when it comes to their ability to care about recycling or buying earth-friendly products. Not to mention that there is the accompanying myth that well-off white people are simply more earth conscious, at least if they are democrats.
Latoya hit the nail on the head here (as she so often does).
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
PS the resources and energy needed for her cover photo shoot alone is probably more than what the other woman uses in a year! (make-up, clothes, lights, cameras, printing, transportation, food, bottled water, the list goes on!)
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
Right on inkst!
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 3:33 pm ¶
PureGracefulTree wrote:
Thanks a lot for posting the Kerry Washington video. I struggle sometimes with finding the words to describe environmental racism to those who see it as simply a matter of eating organic food and buying a Prius. What a beautiful woman she is!
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶
Ain't I an African wrote:
I agree that it sometimes costs more to be green, to support “fair” trade or heck even maintain a healthy weight. Race definitely is a concern in all of this. We need to question market fundamentalism more, because I believe it is largely to blame for the sorry state this earth is in today.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 3:45 pm ¶
mk wrote:
The first thing that jumped out at me was the source of the original article. I haven’t noticed mainstream fashion magazines to be real cognoscente of the bigger picture of systemic injustice when they do their flashy human-interest pieces. I’m not saying that I think Diaz’s finished product will be any better necessarily…just that there could end up being more to it than what’s portrayed here. I don’t know.
Thanks for bringing this up, in any case. The green movement makes me cringe a lot of the time (even as I recognize the importance of doing something about the state of the environment) for many of the reasons in the original post and that other commentators have brought up.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 4:14 pm ¶
JS wrote:
I’m really glad to see this post and the previous excellent post on Peruvian Indigenous oil conflicts. The two posts illustrate two of the biggest issues (for me, as someone kind of obsessed with environmental justice and green jobs) in contemporary environmentalism today: overcoming mainstream environmentalism’s undeniable privileged bias, and relatedly, addressing environmental problems through a social justice perspective.
As Van Jones, founder of Green for All (probably my favorite environmental organization out there), says, the fossil fuel economy would never have been erected if environmental justice concerns were at the core from the get-go. The same fossil fuel infrastructure that is the cause of global warming (which will wreak unspeakable devastation on global communities of color) is responsible for most environmental injustices (asthma, diabetes, cancer clusters, toxic poisoning) affecting communities of color today. If we were properly protecting all people, instead of just privileged folks, we’d have figured out renewable energies years ago- fossil fuels just wouldn’t be acceptable. ‘Mainstream environmentalism’ (because, despite what you might see in Marie Claire, the environmental movement is incredibly diverse and concerned with equity if you include, as many don’t, the environmental justice movement) will not manage to get to the root of the problem if it doesn’t recognize that social justice and sustainability are not separate issues- you simply can’t solve one without the other. And you also can’t create real change if you’re constantly alienating everyone without the luxury (and huge resource consumption) to consider their responsibility. Responsibility’s important, but whose responsibility is really needed?
I also hope that, while we can critique the pretty major problems in mainstream environmentalism, we can see the strains within it that do address issues of privilege and social justice. I’ve got a lot of hope that the student climate movement (and much of the rest of the climate movement) is going in a more EJ direction. There’s a lot about environmentalism that needs to change, but we’re not all so off-base. Green For All, Sustainable South Bronx, The Apollo Alliance, The Blue-Green Alliance, and literally hundreds of locally-based environmental justice and green jobs organizations are pursuing a much more mature environmentalism. I only pray that it’s a matter of time before they’re given the mainstream legitimacy that Sierra and other classic enviros have.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
The idea that saving the environment depends on personal, individual choice is doomed to failure. And I don’t understand why so many environmentalists who are otherwise on the left side of the spectrum embrace this idea, because it aligns more closely with conservative, right-wing thought.
For example, conservatives don’t support social programs like food stamps because they think this should be left up to private charity and individual choice. Not all of them are heartless bastards… many of them do donate a lot, and volunteer with these private charities.
But the problem with private charities is that they have to rely on the market to raise money — a kind of emotional market. Some causes pull the heartstrings more than others. E.g. fluffy (and fairly useless) pandas get more attention than small, ugly fish that happen to be a crucial component of the food chain. The causes with the least telegenic faces get the least money. People are more likely to give money to help a child get a kidney transplant than help an elderly mean-looking ex-con get a job.
Social programs are better off anchored by the government or some sort of large organization that makes funding choices that are more impartial… based on what’s going to benefit us as a whole, not on what’s most immediately emotionally compelling.
I give money to private charities but I try to do it based on how I think my tax money could be better spent. Ideally my tax money would go to all the right places and I wouldn’t have to donate anything. A lot more of our tax money should be allocated to environmental concerns in order to improve the health and standard of living of our children and future generations.
I hate that every year the pollution in Atlanta gets worse and people with asthma are suffering more and more. Driving less is simply not an option especially with our insane level of transportation racism… Atlanta has the only major city public transportation system in the States that receives NO state funding at all, basically because the white Republicans controlling the state pursestrings think that Atlanta is too full of gay black liberals to deserve it. I’m not exaggerating this.
Ideally my tax money would go to support public transportation here, and also making the huge industrial polluters clean up, but instead it goes to build more highways and give tax breaks to polluters to relocate in Georgia. The only solution to this horrible state of affairs is political. We’re not going to get anywhere trying to shame people to make tiny changes in individual choices!
Focusing solely on individual choice is just stupid and backward. If you look at countries that have successfully implemented environmental programs, it’s always a case where the government and individuals worked together and met each other in the middle. I’m thinking of Japan’s energy-saving initiatives, or Costa Rica’s national park system (almost a third of the entire country is protected space). The Costa Rica initiative wouldn’t have worked without top-down legislative efforts together with a bottom-up culture of conservation in which people realized that environmentalism and ecotourism were more sustainable for their long-term economic future.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
Ivy wrote:
@atlasien- great reply. your comment was really well thought out and I completely agree.
I think it’s really unfortunate that aspects of the green movement are so trendy and aren’t being practical for the people affected by pollution and all that the most.
It’s so important to save our earth but there are so many factors that need to be considered in the strategy for in battle. And I really feel that often people need a wake-up call about who is actually standing in the way of environment protection.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 7:04 pm ¶
Tomá wrote:
This is an incisive piece. There is enough of an established and diverse environmental justice movement for us to move beyond the “eco vs. race” model but we still have a long journey ahead when it comes to providing meaningful educational experiences that help people like Cameron Diaz see beyond herself and her world and be able to practice some empathy. In many ways she typifies the stereotype of Hollywood. Part of me feels sorry for her–she just doesn’t know–but the other part of me is both scared and mad. Her celebrity, in all its glorious ignorance, is a vehicle for maintaining the status quoe more than challenging it. Her ignorance of that, makes her dangerous, doesn’t it?
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 7:05 pm ¶
Pickly wrote:
It is becoming increasingly chic in upper-middle class white households to “go green,” as evidenced by large corporations marketing “green” products. Used to be you could only find biodegradable detergent in a place like Whole Foods, and now it’s in my small hometown’s Spartan Store.
From what I understand about a lot of environmental issues, “hip green products” in general seem somewhat counterproductive compared to a fuller focus on environmental issues, (though getting environmental issues in general into public view is probably helpful, but may get counterproductive if handled in the “coolness” way.)
Some green products are undoubtedly helpful, but seem to often ignore cheaper (but less glamorous) ways to reduce bad environmental effects (like reusing things, buying less stuff in general, opening windows or such rather than using air conditioning, finding ways to drive less), and also seem to ignore lifestyle changes that may be needed, in addition to the problems talked about above.
(From what I’ve heard of “green products”, a lot of them seem to either have problematic side effects, or do not actually represent the most environmentally effective way to make or do something.)
Focusing solely on individual choice is just stupid and backward. If you look at countries that have successfully implemented environmental programs, it’s always a case where the government and individuals worked together and met each other in the middle.
Seconded.
(There do seem a lot of lifestyle changes that can only work if governments, or some other large collection of people, work to make changes.)
(That’s also really screwed up about the lack of mass transit in Atlanta. A more typical “different regions fight for funding” wouldn’t be that great either, but wow..)
(Note: I’m not actually an expert in any of this, despite kind of writing it that way.)
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 7:18 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
LOL, I read that article today too and would have probably written it off as another episode of “it’s just Cameron being ditzy and clueless” (remember those Mao bags) if not for the fact that I live in a neighborhood that has a coal-fired power plant smack in the middle of it. So I see what she’s getting at regarding personal and neighborhood responsibility. Granted, she could have been a little bit more tactful and chose her words more carefully, but damn, some things you just can’t sugarcoat. This is your home, your neighborhood. No one is going to sail in on a white cloud of goodness and save you. You need to start giving a damn. And when your children name the neighborhood power plant “Smokey” and the quality of the air sometimes depends on which way the wind is blowing that day, well, something is seriously wrong with that picture. And sometimes, that means getting your hands dirty and doing what you might not want to do (or afraid to do, or squeezing in time to do) to get to where you want to go.
Speaking from experience, lawmakers rarely listen to just one person (or a couple for that matter), but it’s pretty hard to ignore a whole bunch of people bitching and making what goes on behind closed doors public. The Environmental Reform organization in my neighborhood is made up of many people…from professionals to the undocumented , to artists and the working class. Everyone has a voice. Some give money, some donate time, some create resources to pass out, and some just make a point of showing up at the community meetings to say “We are here! These people aren’t alone. This is our community and you WILL hear ALL of us!”
And you know what? Over the years, changes have been made, and companies are being held accountable for their pollution. It’s not where we want it to be, but it’s a hell of a lot better than it was 10 years ago and light years away from where it would be if people let the status quo be.
The point I’m trying to make is if you want other people to care, you have start with yourself and your community; not stand idly by and say “This is the way it’s always been, and I know I’ll get the Black Consumption someday from it, and my kid has asthma and nosebleeds from it but HEY, it’s okay because that’s just the way it is.”
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 10:01 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Good interaction on this thread, y’all.
I’ve been away all day, but I did want to respond to some things generally.
1. The spot I used to work for combined anti-consumerism with environmental issues. It was through working there that I realized how much was going on. One of my coworkers summed up the philosophy thusly: “We appreciate the fact that more companies are thinking about green and more stores are selling green kitchen supplies, but we really want you to use vinegar.” (I was shocked to find out that vinegar removes soap scum and dark tile stuff without that acrid chemical smell that Tilex emits. Who knew?)
That’s how they were – anti-bottled water, pro bike riding, anti-meat, pro-community spaces. So much of greening is about returning to simplicity. For example, we could make enormous strides in the global food issue if most of us did one simple thing: eat what’s in season. Add that to another simple thing – eat less meat. Boom. But there is a comfort and convenience level that most people are accustomed to that is hard to shift. That’s why I think so much emphasis is placed on shopping your way green than by cutting back. Shopping makes people think of acquisition, which makes them happy. Thinking critically often leads to reducing things, which makes people think they are being deprived. It’s an interesting dynamic.
2. Yes, as I mentioned in the piece, everyone has to do their part. But as others have mentioned up thread, there is a big fucking difference in scope. For example, my boyfriend used to live in a part of the South where the known polluters were also the main employers of the town. A while back, the residents had sued and settled for toxic dumping, which awarded $3,000 to each resident for the health costs and inconvenience. However, they didn’t want to raise too much fuss – after all, if that plant left, so did the jobs. This is what I mean when I say there needs to be more thought around strategy – even if all the individuals in a neighborhood ban together, there are other ramifications at play than just booting the polluter.
3. Sorry, this post was so US-centric. Yes, there are – and have always been – POC in the green movement and many are doing excellent work. (I’ve got an interview with Bryant Terry that I need to transcribe that speaks to a lot of this.) And other areas of the globe have been eco-innovators for ages. Taipei, Taiwan was just named one of Fast Company’s Fast Cities by pledging to drastically eliminate waste:
I’ll expand on this more in future posts. I should have been more clear. My experience has been with green non profits and…well…sigh, that’s another post in itself.
Posted 11 Jun 2009 at 11:47 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
This is an issue that I’ve been going over for the past few years.
I am all for a cleaner planet. I try to do my part, but admittiedly, I don’t recycle as much as I could.
(but w00t for 10c pop bottle returns!)
I’ve been feeling, though, that the “green” movement is all about patting rich people on the back.
Poor people are buying used products everyday. They are the ones on the bicycles or buses…or walking.
When I was a kid, I would pile into our used car and drive to a neighborhood that had garage/yard sales.
So many clothes, toys, books, furniture of ours came from yard sales and value village.
But, no one wrote an article about our “greenness”. Our lack of an air conditioner wasn’t something that was looked highly upon.
Oh, but because rich people have the choice to “go green” available to them, we should applaud them? wtf.
I think the best first step is to get members of the community invested in cleaning up neighborhoods. If you want to donate flourescent bulbs, then go for it.
If you want to donate organic food, go for it.
But if someone is living on minimum wage, they are not thinking about how they can get to Whole Foods to get some free-range chicken breast <_<
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 12:40 am ¶
Paz wrote:
@Ana – She regularly visited her Cuban family as a child, so she does have ties with her Latina heritage. It’s irrelevant whether she’s a white Cuban, black Cuban, etc, as if she had darker skin that would somehow make her more Latina. And please, try not to say “She’s only half.” Being mixed does not dilute your heritage.
This may be a bit off topic, but I was rather annoyed at two parts of this article:
she’s eye-to-eye with her less willowy interviewees – high school girls, the Latino father of a young boy, a science teacher
Why does the father have his race denoted and the others don’t? Are they assumed to be white?
Then there is the problem of illegal immigrants – and there are many in this area – being decidedly disinclined to draw attention to themselves by registering complaints about air quality.
Poorly phrased. It starts off sounding like the illegal immigrants are a problem because of their presence (after all, Long Beach is full of them!) and the authors seems to brush off their problem. “Disinclined to draw attention” as if it’s just kind of inconvenient for them, like taking shorter showers. Uh, no, it’s that they don’t want to risk being freakin deported.
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 2:23 am ¶
Pheagan wrote:
I live in LA, and I am viciously amused by all the white eco-heads here with their gigantic cars and eight dollar lightbulbs. Meanwhile, when I’m on the bus I notice most of the people on it are people of color. It’s white people who do the most damage with their consuming behavior– how can you ask a poor person to change? They’re already, by virtue of their poverty, not creating half as much environmental problems as your average suburban white teenager with Daddy’s car. I’m white, btw. I don’t mean to sound self-hating or hating of white people. But I know my people and their bullshit well.
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 2:54 am ¶
Slush wrote:
I’m going to turn around and defend the over-privileged environmentalists for a minute. Not that I don’t agree with pretty much everything above, but I think a whole lot of environmentalists worked really hard to trendify environmentalism. Any intelligent environmentalist is pretty aware that green products are not the final answer, and really just the beginning, but the fact is that for as many activists and more socially/politically critical folks as may be turned off by the middle/upper class focus and trendiness, a lot more apathetic consumers will be attracted to it.
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 10:09 am ¶
inkst wrote:
@Slush, I agree that it is in some ways positive for “going green” to be trendy, but the root of the problem is still there: consumption.
The impact of our choices as consumers is, for me, the core of the personal responsibility aspect of the environmental movement, and when it comes to confronting personal responsibility, those with privilege are the ones who need to foot the bill. We often don’t think about where things come from, but if you take the time to make connections, then you can consider the fact that if you live in Michigan and are buying mangoes, they got picked somewhere in Mexico by someone getting paid next to nothing, then they were packed on a truck, then another truck, then another one, until they finally got to the supermarket that marks the price up so that you can buy a luxury tropical fruit. Meat, as Latoya mentioned, has a huge environmental impact as well, not to mention the impact on communities close to slaughterhouses and CAFOs. Our choices as privileged consumers have a direct impact on maintaining low-paying (in the case of migrant workers, almost slave wages) jobs with terrible working conditions, all so that your beef can be $2/lb and you can get a bottle of wine for $3. Same with “green” products. They are still products that require a factory, a plastic bottle, labels, and long-range distribution. Being free of phosphates and biodegradable does not make something much more low impact than it’s non-biodegradable partner. Same with large-scale organic stuff like what you get at Whole Foods. To produce and distribute food at that scale, even if it is organic, requires huge amounts of energy, resources, and cheap labor. And fair trade shmair trade. Labels like fair trade and organic are there to assuage white guilt and earn a distributor an extra buck. People like to pretend that their banana-buying is supporting some poor colored folks across the way.
All this is to say that this trend often serves as a distraction. At the end of the day, we’ll see how it all plays out, but in my mind, it is insidious, because it continues to blind us to the real consequences of our lifestyles. As other comments above mention, sustainability is inextricably tied in with true social justice, and in essence, we are getting at how our economy runs and what our values as a culture are.
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶
RCHOUDH wrote:
I agree with everyone else above that personal responsibility is simply not enough to combat damages to the environment. People have to band together and become socially responsible for changing their communities into ecofriendly spaces. On a more global scale, I came across a Washington Post article recently about how China and the US continue to not see eye to eye on ways to combat climate change. Since the US and China are the biggest contributers towards global climate change, each is insistent upon the other to reduce their own carbon footprints first before the other follows. In another article about this issue, I read that politics (as usual) is actually the reason for each country not budging from its stance, rather than a genuine concern for the environment. Each nation feels that reducing its own carbon footprint will be difficult upon its economy and give the other (its competitor) a leading economic edge. It’s upsetting to see that selfish political and economic concerns are dictating the outcome of an issue that has the potential to impact the entire world, not just these two nations. And it also reveals our own (rich nations’) hypocrisy. For years we went about living our environmentally damaging lifestyles without thought and now that the damages are affecting us and we see other nations copying our own lifestyle, now we start to “go green” and insist that others do so too or else (which is personified by the rich Cameron Diaz telling poor folks to change their lifestyle).
Posted 12 Jun 2009 at 7:13 pm ¶
kavalier1228 wrote:
This is good stuff. Finally, this verbalize much of issues I have with many of the celebrities’ way of handling the environmental issues. It is not just race; it is always the cultural values a community adopts that can make or break the environment as well as what kind of technology are we willing to allow to be in our lives. As of right now, many of the city environment is not that much people-friendly as well as eco-friendly. Our cultural and physical environment speaks to us, whether we like it or not.
There’s a commentary about New York City’s Times Square area being pedestrian only public place, no cars coming through. If more cities are coming more people-friendly and less car friendly, not only will we have more chances of a better community but eventually our cities and small towns will be more eco-friendly. Look at this link for more info: http://www.curatormagazine.com/brianwatkins/america%E2%80%99s-rebellion-against-the-car-the-philosophy-behind-making-times-square-a-public-space/
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 12:18 am ¶
Chris Diaz wrote:
Cameron Diaz is white in the eyes of America. I just wanted to say that, not to put down Cameron or assume anything about her character, but to point out that the America she navigates is not the same as a darker-skinned Latina. She did, after all, play the daughter of an old, white Ashkenazi Jew retired woman in Florida in a movie.
I think alot of celebrities stay away from the most compelling work to be done for both unconscious and conscious reasons.
In terms of unconscious reasons, I think they really do lose touch (assuming they ever were in touch) with the poor and people of color. It’s not okay, but, it is understandable that being a millionare for years would contribute to cluelessness.
As for conscious reasons, I just think it is a very daunting idea for them to really push the issue of environmental racism. Nearly all wealthy celebrities are paid by white people, the “big shots” in their industries are white people, and they live in neighborhoods with wealthy white people.
It’s alot easier to avoid personal persecution if condemning what the evil corporations in some far away country are doing to the poor indigenous people or what outboard motors are doing to the poor manatees, then it is to talk about what the greedy white people living in your own county or state are doing to the people 20 miles down the road. Suddenly, that person may go from the local person “doing importannt work” to a “troublemaker” or “reverse racist” in the eyes of the local whites.
It is difficult to do what’s right in the face of society’s unwritten rules. It appears Cameron isn’t up to the challenge. If she was, she would have had the decency and guts to, instead of the poor brown woman from the old neighborhood, criticize the rich white guy that lives on her street who is actually profiting from the pollution.
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 6:13 am ¶
Lxy wrote:
Mainstream “environmentalism” as typified by Hollywood elites is a joke if not a political fraud.
It involves a high degree of navel-gazing lifestyle politics at its most solipsistic.
For these supposed Progressives, it’s only a question of a few changes in consumption patterns in their comfortable middle-class existence.
In essence, it proposes Politically Correct Consumerism as an environmental solution.
What these people do not–and will not–question is their *Capitalist System* in general, which is the driver not only of consumerism but the various forms of environmental degradation that result from the profit-system itself.
It’s not just about consumption or “living a simpler life.”
It’s about capitalism.
To me, the surest sign that mainstream environmentalism has been politically coopted and turned into just another idiotic trendy fad for Mainstream America is that even US corporations are touting how “green” they are.
In essence, America is trying to peddle the myth of a kinder, gentler greener US capitalism.
Good luck with that.
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 7:45 pm ¶
molly w. wrote:
I spent a couple years working for an environmental non-profit, and I came to believe there are a lot of eco-folks who don’t care much for *people*, in general.
Certainly it’s not true of everyone in the green movement — but there are enough misanthropes out there, dedicated to protecting the earth from humanity, that it really affects which issues take precedence.
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 8:18 pm ¶
molly w. wrote:
p.s. After I hit post, it occurred to me my comment might seem to be saying, “It’s not really racism, it’s misanthropy against people in general.” Which is definitely NOT what I mean — in fact, the most striking specific example I can recall was unquestionably racist: We made 200 too many copies of a letter of support from a tribal council, and when we discovered the mistake, a coworker said with disgust, “We killed all those trees for those f@&ing Indians.”
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 8:28 pm ¶
m. wrote:
@Pheagan:
Hey, I lived in L.A., too. Your description of a lot of the people that reside there cracked me up. It was me and every other broke ass brown person (+ a few white folks) stuck taking the bus and the Metro, or otherwise bumming rides from people. Up here in the Bay Area, though, it’s the opposite. I’m actually riding BART, MUNI and AC transit with people who look like they’ve got money, many of these people even own cars but just park them at the BART stations. I’m pretty sure most (if not all) of the people I’m referring to are only willing to ride public transit around here because the lines run everywhere and more often, plus they all wanna save a buck on gas (okay, and I guess some of them really do care about the environment). Here’s the thing, though: I can’t help but wonder if they’d all be doing the same if they were living in any of the places I’ve lived (you know how hard it can be to get around L.A. via public transportation). Most likely not, because for some of us taking the bus/train is not just about personal convenience or saving a few pounds of emission – it really is done out of necessity.
I’m always wondering the following about so many people: when will they learn to carpool or take the bus (rather than just driving hybrid gas guzzlers)? When will they turn off their lights (rather than just replacing them with cancer bulbs), use a fan (instead of just flexing their air conditioners) or separate their recycling from their trash (instead of just buying products that are recycled)? When will they take shorter showers (instead of just installing “water-saving” faucets)? It’s sick and selfish. I mean, if they’ve got the money to purchase “eco-friendly” products, that’s fine. (Not too sure about those bulbs or those cars – maybe people who are just starting to care about their footprints should try driving fuel-efficient vehicles instead of stupid hybrid SUVs with an option that they’ll rarely–if ever–utilize.) I’m not trying to demonize people who haven’t quite put their “green” ideas into practice, but honestly: most of these people are talking the talk while walking only a portion of the walk, because they’re taking a short-cut. Actually, there was an episode of ‘King of the Hill’ (I think during the show’s final season, but I can’t remember) that deal with the subject of liberal do-gooders’ half-assed attempts at “saving the environment”, as well as their condescending approach. I recall hearing the characters mention Matt Damon more than once. In my opinion, Cameron Diaz would work just as well for those jokes.
Posted 13 Jun 2009 at 10:45 pm ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
I always tell my students that the environmental movement in America is called the “Environmental Justice” or “EJ” movement. The so-called mainstream environmentalists are not really. The thing is that America demographically is becoming less white. This means that any political “movement” that is all or almost all white is doomed to failure. You can read all of the articles about how racism is dooming the Republicans.
Well, it is also dooming the so-called mainstream environmental movement. I worked with such groups for many years and fought to get them involved with EJ groups, and ….. well, I gave up. (Maybe I am just too old and cranky to deal with them any more. Oh, and not “in the country”.
Without social and economic justice, there can be no environmental progress. It’s not a matter of “it would be nice”, it is a matter of reality.
In terms of the rest of the world, there is a lot happening that doesn’t even get covered in the US “mainstream” media (mainstream always seems to mean white middle/ruling class). For instance, there is a big campaign against plastic bags in China, everyone carries clothe bags with them (I have about six!).
And please don’t compare China to the US. Per capita, Chinese production of greenhouse gasses is about 1/22nd of American. If you think comparing China to the US on a less than per capita basis is fair, consider comparing the US to Gabon.
Class and race have to enter into the equation. Most of the pollution in the US is done by government and big companies. Guess who?? Wealthy people are the biggest problem, not poor and working class folks. Pretending that we are all the same becomes a way to blame poor folks and POC for the sins of the wealthy white class (mostly).
Posted 16 Jun 2009 at 8:12 pm ¶
AOD wrote:
@ Ana:
Saying she is “only half” is dilineating the other part of a person. You would never say to someone,well she is “only half black” – as if her “black’” identity did not matter because there was another side to her. These sorts of ideas come from the one-drop rule and is used now for various races in the U.S.
Incorrect. Cameron Diaz very much identifies with being Latina – or of mixed race. If you read her Vogue interview of the same month – she does talk about being a Latina woman and how it is very much apart of her. Her mother is a U.S born and raised white woman – who happens to be of German-Native American descent. Her father was born to two Cuban parents. And I actually believe she stated someplace that her father was born in Cuba. Cameron Diaz spent her summers in Tampa, Florida in Little Havana with her Cuban grandparents and she relays some of her exposure to her Latina roots in that article.
In fact, Diaz has said many times that “white” people never take into account her Latino/Spanish surname – they simply look at her and make assumptions. If you ask most people what Cameron’s last name is they say it as if it just another U.S based “white surname” like Johnson or Taylor … they don’t even realize it is of Latin origin until it is pointed out. This is something Cameron Diaz has said many times.
However, if she had corkscrew curls, a curvy body and tan skin, many people without even looking at her name with classify her as Latina or African-American, when in fact, she could be Iranian, Turkish or Greek.
Cameron Diaz never said she identifies as white, people identify her as a white woman. When Bob Dylan said he was a Turkish Jew, America denied it and went on a campaign to eliminate that notion.
People in the spotlight often have trouble embracing what they identify as because the masses have already decided for them.
I liked this posting. It recalls to mind how many feel that the feminist movement in the U.S really was directed to and for white women and that many in the movement marginalized or excluded people of color or were oblivious. It seems to be a good gesture for change in the beginning – like environmentalism – but in the end because just another fad “white” Americans cling to, so as to appear hip and with it.
Posted 16 Jun 2009 at 9:03 pm ¶
Ashlynn wrote:
Being in NYC, usually I come across some sort of green initiative everyday. Local magazines. Hip neighborhoods. The mayors plan to plant a million trees. It’s all great on the surface. But what most Eco-enthusiasts fail to realize is that most New Yorkers, particularly minorites, do not have the resources to individually take on environemntal issues. I for one, find it annoying that some privileged white kid can preach to me that I need to buy x, y, and z when he’s living well off. Most low income families can’t afford to buy exspensive organic products from the holy Grail that is Trader Joes or Whole Foods, even the “local” (read: closest hip neighborhood) greenmarket.
Furthermore, even when we are able to take the initiative, it’s the city that shuts us down. A few years back we had to lovely community gardens on our block, one with the best tomatoes and collard greens you could find, the other resplendent in all it’s greenery, and a beautiful childrens mural to boot. However, whrn the city felt the needs to throw up a couple of poorly made, yet horribly overexpensive homes on the block, both gardens were shut down and ordered to be used as dumping grounds for construction debris, filling our block and homes with stray cats and mice. The construction has been long completed, yet we are still not allowed to use the spaces. All over, there are vacant lots that can be used as green areas, yet the city chooses to continually exploit them for their own needs(like shutting down a library to put a probation center in it’s place), continually diminishing the people’s hope.
Posted 22 Jun 2009 at 4:33 am ¶