Written by Claire Pham
Edited by Mae Ngo
Cover Art by Dora Martelli and Christine Zhang
SALT LAKE CITY, UT--
In 1935, if you were to look at a map containing all the neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, Utah, chances are you would find a map legend indicating color-coded areas— green being “best” and red being “hazardous.” The defining factors? Location, socioeconomic status, and racial and ethnic composition.
The practice of redlining can be traced back to the mid-20th century when President Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) to refinance low-interest mortgages to struggling homeowners during the Great Depression. The federal government would prioritize investing in more “respectable” neighborhoods and had cartographers mark areas as green, blue, yellow, and red in order of declining quality respectively. Predominantly white and affluent neighborhoods would be marked as green and blue. An area could be yellow just because a federal official spotted a black person passing through. And of course, it’s no shocker that the majority of black and impoverished neighborhoods were marked red. This policy made it clear it was used with the explicit intention to keep suburban neighborhoods white by denying mortgages to black residents, and during its three year period, the rates of personal wealth for white homeowners flourished while black homeowners suffered, furthering the racial divide.
Activists have recognized that redlining played a prominent role in furthering segregation and income inequality in America, the effects of which can still be felt today in many neighborhoods. Yet, many are still unable to see how these effects harm minorities from an environmental perspective.
In a 2013 study by the Salt Lake Tribune, there was a noticeable divide between the West and East sides of Salt Lake City, Utah, that stemmed from and was kept alive by systemic racism. The historically redlined West side, composed of a 51% minority population, often attracts urban planners who see these poorly-funded areas as opportunities to build refineries, factories, and other construction projects nearby. These capital resources increase people’s exposure to noise pollution and significantly poorer air quality compared to that of the majority-white East side communities. As a result, many residents experience side effects such as asthma and lead poisoning that can lead to permanent brain damage. A more recent study states that minority children are twice as likely to test positive for lead poisoning than white children, most of whom live in metropolitan areas and can depend on housing health regulations to keep their homes safe. The West side communities are also more prone to practices such as illegal dumping in the middle of the street, which can contaminate water runoff and pose serious environmental hazards to those neighborhoods.
Day by day, the minorities and impoverished residents of Salt Lake grow wearier of the effects of climate change that can be traced back to hundreds of years of oppression. Behind the cultural hubs and natural beauty of the Valley lies an ugly history of institutionalized racism— the ramifications of which can be affirmed today by observing the infrastructure, public services, and air quality present in the segregated West side communities— and the minds, bodies, and health of the residents are taking the brunt of it all.
CANNON BALL, ND--
February 22, 2017– thousands of members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and other indigenous activists are living in protest camps. Some are just beginning to wake up and setting up campfires. Others are embracing this as their last day on the site before they are forced to evacuate. Most, however, are getting ready for the long haul and aren’t leaving anytime soon.
North of the main Oceti Sakowin camp where many protesters have gathered lies the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a project initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, that will cost $3.78 billion and stretch 1,172 miles across four different states. The ultimate goal of the pipeline is to transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to industrial plants along the Gulf of Mexico. What the federal government failed to realize is how the project would run through sacred burial grounds and pose a serious risk of oil spills which would contaminate Lake Oahe, the surrounding tribes’ water source.
Earlier, in August of 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe recognized the approval of the DAPL as a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act for failing to prior consult with tribal leaders in ensuring that culturally sacred sites would be left untouched. The tribe sued the Army Corps of Engineers and sent this official report to court.
In September, protests against ongoing construction activities escalated. Law enforcement began to unleash guard dogs and tear gas protesters. Fortunately, there was an upside in all of this: the Obama administration proposed the halting of construction on the pipeline. Kirsten Kelsch, a protest coordinator whose husband is part of the Lakota Sioux tribe, said, “It’s really good. I felt like crying, honestly. I feel very positive that we’re going to win.” And so do other activists, whose growing voices echoed across the Great Plains of North Dakota in protest. “I believe that we will win!”
However, in February of 2017, the Army Corps of Engineers granted an easement to continue construction of the DAPL without any necessary means of ownership of the land or consulting with the surrounding tribes. The future of the reservation was once again thrust into uncertainty. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota set February 22 as the deadline for protestors to permanently evacuate from the site. When asked when she would leave, Rachel Wheatley, a volunteer chef in a smaller protest camp, Kul Wicasa, laughed and said, “Until it’s done.”
In November of 2020, almost three years of constant petitions, rallies, and protests later, the case has gone through numerous rulings by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A new environmental review is expected to take place shortly to measure the environmental hazards and damages posed by the DAPL. But for now, operation on the pipeline is still permitted, and neither President-elect Joe Biden nor his team has yet to take a stance on the issue. Marshall McCrea, the President and Chief Commercial Officer of Energy Transfer LP, the controlling company of the DAPL project, says that he cannot imagine a future with the DAPL entirely out of service.
It is still November of 2020, and the case remains unresolved. More importantly, necessities to indigenous culture and survival—their land and water— still bleakly hang in the balance.
SAN JOSE, CA-- A DISCUSSION--
Starting from a very young age, many of us are fed spoonfuls of bittersweet medicine about the “American Dream.” The promises of unlimited expansion, limited government, private property, billionaire conquests— all sweet like candy and melt right on our tongues— and that is understandable. These stories are often fed to us by the media, our leaders, and our parents, who have good intentions and wish nothing but the best for their children’s futures. But as we spend more time on this Earth, many of us begin to experience the bitter aftertaste of the sacrifices we must pay for guarantees of infinite economic growth on a planet with a deficient distribution of resources.
Since the start of the rampant spread of industrialization starting in the late 18th century and the 1880 energy transition in Britain, humanity has become increasingly dependent on fossil fuels for energy, electricity, and heat among many other uses. According to the World Nuclear Association, fossil fuels generated 64.5% of energy worldwide in 2017. Global capitalism has become inseparable from the use of coal, oil, and gas in rigs, refineries, oil fields, factories, or structures like the previously-mentioned Dakota Access Pipeline— which, again, was built to generate capital for oil refineries. Temperatures are rising at rapid rates, and if we fail at mitigating the effects of climate change, it will wreak havoc on our globe.
Granted, it is not like the subject of environmentalism is as taboo anymore, especially in this day and age where a significant number of activists have stood up and called for change. The Paris Climate Agreement, put forward by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has called forth many world leaders and assigned them goals to help mitigate the effects of climate change, putting special emphasis on nations in the Global South that are often the sites of illegal dumping and spillage from developed Western countries. Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, for example, have received thousands of metric tons of trash from countries like the United States, the UK, and France. Exports of lead from old American batteries, which contain 20 pounds of lead each, are illegally dumped in Mexico, contaminating the soil, air, and water and poisoning Mexican citizens. The U.S. military gives off more carbon emissions than any other organization in the world, releasing an estimated 1.2 billion tons between the War in Afghanistan in 2001 to 2017– more than the entire United Kingdom gives off annually.
Another notable attempt to combat the climate crisis comes in the form of the ever-so-popular Green New Deal, sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). It aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible across all economic sectors by investing in renewable, zero-emissions energy to power electricity. It also promises high-paying jobs in clean energy industries and the construction of higher-quality infrastructure in urban communities. Unfortunately, what both the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal lack is both the fortitude to hold global capitalism accountable for causing the climate crisis and the ability to spotlight the voices of black and indigenous people of color, who are often the most affected by climate change.
For Cheyenne Antonio, a member of a group of indigenous activists called the Red Nation, the Green New Deal is not effective enough. She states that the bill’s language does not explicitly ban fracking and other forms of fossil fuel exploitation and consumption, and will therefore leave enough wiggle room for corporations to do so. That is why the Red Nation has introduced the Red Deal, which builds off the bill by focusing on indigenous struggles in the climate crisis and advocates for slowly but entirely dismantling the structures of capitalism and imperialism that are responsible for putting us in the situation we are now. For the Red Nation, revolutionaries, and many other left-wing critics of reformist bills like the Green New Deal, true liberation of the people and the planet cannot be achieved any other way.
To combat this climate crisis, we do have to recognize that many people cannot envision a planet without the systems currently in place now. However, if we want to save our Earth, we must take the first step forward. Whether that means rejoining the Paris Agreement, pushing for the Green New Deal, or making small changes, like swapping in vegan substitutes to your daily diet or switching to renewable energy in your home— big or small, these differences will nonetheless contribute something positive to our Earth and mitigate emissions. But we cannot stop there. Our planet will not be truly saved through simply greenwashing capitalism, even if it does make a considerable difference. It’s time to speak up about holding corporations, the military industrial complex, and many other weapons of capitalism strictly accountable. It’s time to hold discussions about the possibility of dismantling the structures of colonialism and racism that are still present today for the sake of the oppressed and our planet. From the West Side of Salt Lake City that still remains tainted by redlining, to the great indigenous reservations of Cannon Ball fighting for their land, to our schools right here in the Bay Area— it’s time to start doing.
Awesome article!