It is interesting to note in the essay by Jamieson that environmentalists are in themselves divided. The book started out by showing how environmentalism and environmental justice are divided on issues, paths of rectification, and ideals. Now Sandler and Pezzullo show that environmentalists cannot always agree upon what their “movement” entails and what its specific goals may be. Some are nature lovers who like places to visit and connect with the non human element. Their goal is to conserve and preserve these locations of wonder and relaxation. Others feel it is the atmosphere and global climate change that is the main factor of environmentalism. Human effects are harming the world community and making it unsafe for future generations. Jamieson, as posed by the title, feels that justice is the uniting factor for both divisions, and that justice is the singular mindset that brings all voices together. He points out that there are two main points of justice action, changing the distribution and the way people are punished. Most environmentalists try to make sure that the environment/nature is harmed as little as possible in the process and feel it is the duty of the offender to clean up the messes they may make. Those who are more concerned about the human aspect (environmental justice advocates) like Shrader-Frechette say that it is everyone’s responsibility to take action against the offenses and make sure that environmental injustice does not occur. For people like Shrader-Frechette, it is the people’s original inaction or ignorance that allows injustice to occur and therefore each and everyone person is responsible for undertaking the project of educating him or her-self about what he or she can do to become activists within his or her own community. They are to locally take action against the institutions that would inflict injustice by participating in NGOs. Also, Shrader-Frechette sees the justice problem as an issue of rights or political equality. It is soley an issue that deals with social status or lack thereof. People, usually minorities, are taken advantage of because they are not granted the same rights or considerations as the more involved, affluent, influential politically active people. For this reason, the minorities are the ones who take the brunt of environmental injustices. For those who don’t take the political equality view of justice, it comes down to who should be the ones bearing the cost or benefit. It is the distributive justice ideal that comes to play. The environment is the responsibility of everyone and therefore we all have an active role to play in maintaining order both in human and natural communities.
One intersting consideration in the article by Allen et al. is that of people seeing the environment in different ways. These authors point out the differences in which races may distinguish the environment around them, but I like to apply it to the different ways in which each individual applies the notion. As an environmental science and policy major I feel that I see the environment in a much broader scale than do some of the other students here at Drake. To provide an example: my good friend Andy sees the environment from a much more recreational lens. To him hunting and fishing are the too main reasons to protect the environment, and having the job of killing deer in an overpopulated area is the way in which he contributes to the cause. He is not an environmental activists in many people’s sense, but in his own experiences of the environment and nature, this is the way in which he does his part. My own view is somewhat different. After taking classes and seeing how much differences in land management affect the world we live in, I have decided to pursue a career in environmental consulting. I would like to become the consultant for private engineering or conservation firms that have land projects and just don’t know how to manage the property in which they wish to develop. Development in this sense could mean returning the land to its natural states, making it good for recreation, or just adhereing to environmental constraints put in place by the EPA. In all cases, by making sure that the least amount of harm is inflicted, and by maximizing the benefits that the land has to offer, I can present a plan of action for the firm to follow. I take the considerations of law, land, nature, and society and mix them into a solution that allows for each to coexist with as a little confrontation or harm as possible. That I feel is the best way in which I can contribute the the promotion of the environment around myself. I mix the two thoughts of environmentalism, like many due, from chapter 3, but I feel that it is necessary to see as many angles as possible or you will miss out on the best opportunity.
