On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

El Salvador: An Unlikely Contender

Like many Latin American countries, El Salvador opened its doors to multinational companies in the early 1990s in the hope that an influx of foreign investment would help steady its newly reformed political system. Entrance into the globalized economy appeared to be the best option for a country emerging from a long and brutal civil war. The region saw a spate of political pushbacks against neoliberal economic policies, but El Salvador remained devoted to the globalized economy.

Following the 1992 peace accords, the right-wing, pro-business Nationalist Republican Alliance (NRA) controlled El Salvador for 17 years. During this time, foreign money, much of it from mining, flooded into El Salvador. In 2001, the conservative government adopted the U.S. Dollar as its official currency. Officials pegged their currency to the dollar with the intention of stabilizing the economy and making El Salvador a more attractive destination for international investors.

Candidates from the socialist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) have won the past two presidential elections but have largely continued the economic strategies initiated by the NRA. The FMLN leaders have not employed the kind of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric that has often been used by other socialist leaders in the region. When Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former leftist guerilla, took power in 2014, he promised budget cuts and to maintain a close relationship with the United States. Sánchez’s predecessor and fellow FMLN member, Mauricio Funes, ruled the country as a centrist.

It is surprising that a country so roundly committed to foreign investment and the global economy would be the one to lead a charge against multinational metal mining corporations.

From Grassroots to Mainstream

Not long ago, El Salvador was actively courting multinational mining operations. After the civil war, the government began trying to rebuild the large-scale mining industry that had died out when conflict erupted in 1980. When global gold prices began to climb in the early 2000s, El Salvador received a flurry of exploration permit applications.

After some exploratory drilling, Pacific Rim Mining Corporation proposed plans for a mine named El Dorado to be built in the basin of the Rio Lempa–El Salvador’s primary source of drinking water.  According to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division, El Dorado would use two tons of cyanide and 900,000 liters of water a day to extract over 1.4 million ounces of gold in about four years.

Rapid industrialization and population growth in the 1990s caused extreme environmental degradation. By the early 2000s, over 90 percent of El Salvador’s ground water was chemically contaminated and no amount of boiling, filtering, or chlorination would make it potable. The prospect of a cyanide and water intensive mine on the crux of the country’s primary source drinking water was, for many, too much to stomach. Locals feared the mine’s copious water consumption would suck up supply and that the cyanide would render it undrinkable in the process.

As word of the mine spread, groups began to form and resist the El Dorado mine and mining in general. By 2005, the grassroots movement had turned national. Local and international groups united to form The National Roundtable Against Metal Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), and the population’s support for a metal mining ban had grown.

In May 2007, El Salvador’s anti-mining movement gained one of its most powerful allies–the Catholic Church. In response to anti-mining statements from archbishops in neighboring countries, the El Salvadorian Catholic Church publicly denounced mining, claiming “no material advantage can be compared to the value of human life.” By October of the same year, polls showed 62 percent of the population opposed metallic mining in El Salvador.

The conservative NRA party had previously blocked attempts by the FMLN to pass a legislative ban on metallic mining but public support for the ban had become irresistible. In March 2008, NRA President Antonio Saca instituted a nationwide moratorium on metal mining permits.

The Backlash

Though this moratorium remained in place until the passage of an anti-mining law last month, the presidential moratorium wasn’t permanent and could have been lifted at any moment. The situation was precarious.

Pacific Rim and other mining cooperations quickly filed legal complaints against El Salvador. These suits quickly devolved into drawn-out legal battles, in which mining corporations demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from one of the poorest countries in Latin America.

As these compensation claims crawled through World Bank tribunals, pro-mining operatives launched violent attacks against the anti-mining movement. From 2009 to 2011, at least four anti-mining activists were murdered. Rather than silencing the movement, these acts of violence galvanized support for the ban.

In late 2016, the World Bank slapped down Pacific Rim’s claim to compensation paving the way for a permanent ban.

A Future Without Mining

Over the course of a few years, the El Salvadorian government’s stance on mining underwent a 180-degree turn. Forces that once backed the mining lobby were forced to concede to a groundswell of opposition. As the effects of environmental degradation and exploitation become more apparent, El Salvador’s grassroots movement provides hope for similar ones around the world.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining appeared first on Law Street.

There are many ways to explore and analyze public health. Oftentimes, scientists use a person’s DNA as a method to unlock underlying causes of diseases. However, the best health predictor may not be lying in genetic code, but in one’s ZIP code.

The connection between ZIP codes and human health has long been of interest to researchers desiring to find the best treatment and prevention strategies for some of our deadliest diseases. Land use laws and zoning regulations have transformed some communities and neighborhoods into dumping grounds for industrial plants or undesirable toxic waste. The long-lasting effects of housing segregation and envornmental racism have also had a disparate impact on minorities, reflected in subpar living conditions. Now, some scientists are attempting to explore the importance of ZIP codes as they relate to disease prevention. 

“ZNA”

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of Health, recently noted that our ZIP code at birth is our “ZNA,” “the blueprint for our behavioral and psychosocial make-up.” The air we breathe and the water we drink has just as much of an impact on human health as our genetic code, if not more so. While genetics can inform and shape our health, so too do three other factors: social determinants, community social environments, and physical environments.

Social determinants of health are aspects like income and inequality. Community social environments include crime rates or the particular affluence of a neighborhood. Physical environment means the walkability of a neighborhood or if industrial plants are located near one’s housing. All of these factors overlap each other, influencing one’s health in both direct and indirect manners–some of which may be invisible. Research has indicated that these determinants and influences may have a more powerful impact on health than individual biological differences do.

Housing Patterns and Health Consequences

There are a variety of ways that living in a particular community can affect one’s health. For example, the physical condition of a home can have a profound impact on residents’ health. Building codes in one neighborhood may be more dangerous than in a more affluent one. Disparities in health outcomes across communities are often demonstrated by lead poisoning and asthma. Older homes may have mold or cockroaches, which could also exacerbate underlying health issues.

Land use characteristics, such as residential density, employment opportunities, and walking trails or open spaces, can promote activity and foster a healthy living environment. Zoning also plays a critical role in determining public health. As noted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), zoning can be instrumental in promoting healthy eating habits and physical activity. Zoning can be utilized to reduce the density of fast food restaurants in a community, incentivize farming in urban areas, and even restrict fast food spots from developing within a specified distance of schools. Additionally, requiring sidewalks, promoting parks and recreation, and widening access to public transportation all play vital roles in increasing physical activity through zoning measures.

Health Mapping

The growth of geographic information science (GIS) and the availability of electronic health records (EHR) now allow for scientists to analyze socioeconomic and environmental factors better than ever before. Health geography has long been an area of medical research that uses geographic techniques to study the impacts of one’s surroundings on their health.

One of the earliest studies employing maps to study dieases was in London, by Dr. John Snow, regarded as one of the fathers of epidemiology. To study the location of cholera outbreaks and deaths in the 1850’s, Dr. Snow used hand-drawn maps showing the location of cholera deaths and then superimposed those with maps of the public water supplies. This allowed him to uncover a cluster of deaths near a particular water pump. His research eventually became an area of study known as disease diffusion mapping, which refers to the spread of disease from a central source, spreading according to environmental patterns and conditions.

GIS utilizes digital software and data sets, along with spatial data, to map multiple aspects of a community. By using and manipulating this geospatial data, researchers are able to thoroughly study the relationship between health, illness, and place. Additionally, EHR can allow scientists to link collected data about the environment with patient medical records. The combination of these powerful tools lends itself well to a broader picture of the interrelationship between ZIP codes, housing conditions and patterns, and human health.

“Not In My Backyard” and Environmental Racism

When development is proposed for a particular community, the most powerful voices can be heard helping to shape the course of the project. “Not In My Backyard” or NIMBY, is a characterization of residents who concede that while a particular project may need to be completed, it should be further away from their community. Projects that could be opposed are practically limitless: any type of housing development, homeless shelters, adult entertainment clubs, and any type of hazardous plants or waste repositories, to simply name a few.

The people who have the power to shape zoning and land use laws in an area tend to be the wealthiest citizens, and usually are white. Thus, more dangerous or undesirable projects are pushed into communities without the bargaining power required to stop them. This type of thinking inevitability promotes environmental racism, utilizing segregated, low-income, minority neighborhoods as the dumping ground for toxic byproducts. This discrimination in land use and zoning policy, particularly fueled by “NIMBY” mindsets, is resulting in increasing health disparities.

What Has Research Uncovered?

Studies have documented that while genetics are an important predictor of health, these other factors have a more powerful impact on health than biology. Income and educational attainment are at least as strongly associated with hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes as particular clinical risk factors. Moreover, those living in areas with less resources for physical activity or healthy food choices have a much higher chance of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

There are dramatic differences in life expectancy rates depending on where one was born in the U.S. In places in the Northeast, populations have a higher life expectancy, while places in the South have the lowest life expectancy rates. These inequalities in mortality rates are intimately tied to housing instability and crowded or subpar housing conditions. In a study of 12,000 New York City households, asthma was more prevalent in Puerto Rican households, immediately followed by other Latino and black households. Moreover, rates of asthma are twice as high in children under the age of 13 in the South Bronx, North/Central Brooklyn, and East/Central Harlem–the three neighborhoods with the highest rates of poverty, morbidity, and mortality in the city.

Additionally, another study utilizing four nationally representative studies noted that worsening economic standing was associated with poor healthcare access, a lack of health insurance, and far higher hospitalization rates. Research has also found that estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics were highest in metropolitan tracts that were highly segregated, and that residential segregation is associated with elevated risks of adult and infant mortality.

The American Housing Survey (AHS) is sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is considered to be the most comprehensive national housing survey in the U.S. It takes a large representative longitudinal sample of houses on both the state and national level. The most recent survey was completed in 2013, and the results are telling. Data shows that 9.2 percent of non-Latino black homes and 7.2 percent of Latino homes have moderate or severe physical problems, compared with only 3.2 percent of non-Latino White homes.  These numbers are staggering, illustrating a serious issue across the country.

Conclusion

Health-related disparities due to housing can be eliminated if proper measures are taken. For example, childhood blood lead levels have improved by 90 percent since the 1970’s, after effective measures were implemented. Housing conditions continue to be among the greatest determinants of human health, as a large list of highly preventable diseases are intimately tied to poor housing. 

National research and multiple academic reports have continued to affirm that housing access and conditions are among the largest determinants of health, both physical and environmental. There are still numerous roadblocks preventing this issue from being rectified. Significant challenges remain when it comes to legislating and securing meaningful public policies that prevent exposure to physical and environmental hazards, whether it be minimizing indoor pollutants or building high-quality low-income housing. Pervasive housing segregation remains embedded in neighborhoods and cities across the country, adding another layer of difficulty. With the proper focus, combating some of America’s most problematic diseases could be more effective than any other previous attempts.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Zoning to Encourage Healthy Eating

CDC: GIS and Public Health at CDC

Additional

Newsweek: Why Zip Code May Influence Health More Than Genetic Code

Public Health Law Center: Land Use/Zoning

CityLimits.org: Building Justice: Genetic Code, ZIP Code and Housing Code All Affect Health and Equality

CityLimits.org: Builiding Justice: NYC’s Sacrifice Zones and the Environmental Legacy of Racial Injustice

EnvironmentalChemistry.com: Environmental Justice and the NIMBY Principle

GIS Lounge: Overview of Public Health and GIS

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ZNA: Could your ZIP Code at Birth Predict Your Health? appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the environmental activism combating global warming is based on the rhetoric of personal responsibility and consumerism: if we buy more “green” products, global warming can be stopped. But can we really buy our way out of rapidly rising temperatures and increasing devastation from human-created environmental disasters? Read on to learn about the emphasis on personal responsibility in environmentalism, and the arguments for and against such an approach.

Global Warming: “You” Can Fix It

It is nearly impossible to find articles addressing climate change without finding a list of things that “you” can do to help stop a massive planetary process.

These tips are meant to be empowering and are geared toward combating a frightening sense of apathy about issues of dire importance like global warming. Climate change in particular is something that many people perceive as being in the distant future, and therefore a sense of denial colors so many people’s thinking about climate change.

Lists of “Top 10 Ways to Reduce Your Carbon Dioxide Emissions Footprint” that abound on the internet are meant to help break down global warming into something digestible; something that is not so colossal that you might as well give up before you start trying to do anything about it. People and organizations concerned about climate change want to break it down into little things that “we can all do everyday” to combat it. Talk of “greening your commute,” “greening your home,” and “buying energy efficient products” dominate many discussions about addressing global warming.

However, critics of this approach point out that the desire to do “something” may be just as damaging–if not more so–than recognizing that this is a huge problem with no easy solution. Discussing global warming as though it can be adequately addressed by individuals using fluorescent light bulbs arguably risks minimizing the gravity of the situation.

Greenwashing

Gas, technology, and car companies that make so many daily commutes possible engage in practices that have been accused of creating enormous amounts of pollution and unnecessary toxic waste. Instead of encouraging actions that target these corporate practices at a systemic level, many efforts to “fight” global warming may actually encourage the greenwashing of these massive corporations.

Greenwashing is usefully defined on the Greenwashing Index–an online-based, awareness-driven attempt to “help keep advertising honest”–in the following way:

Everyone’s heard the expression ‘whitewashing’ — it’s defined as ‘a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts, especially in a political context.’ ‘Greenwashing’ is the same premise, but in an environmental context. It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be ‘green’ through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush. A classic example is an energy company that runs an advertising campaign touting a ‘green’ technology they’re working on — but that ‘green’ technology represents only a sliver of the company’s otherwise not-so-green business, or may be marketed on the heels of an oil spill or plant explosion.

People who criticize corporate greenwashing argue that articles and organizations encouraging people to buy “green” products are actually encouraging people to increase corporate profits by endorsing greenwashing practices. Thus, companies all the way from airlines to those that sell home appliances and personal beauty products engage heavily–and successfully–in greenwashing.

The meat industry often takes the lead in greenwashing. These companies actively distance themselves from the environmental devastation that accompanies factory farming and associated industries, as described by Scientific American here:

Current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of ‘CO2-equivalent’ greenhouse gases the world produces every year. It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone’s lunch a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

Meat company Tyson, for example, has advertised itself as animal-friendly, claiming to slaughter its animals in a “humane” manner. But advocates point out that these claims are greenwashed, as the pigs Tyson sells live their lives in cages so small that they cannot move one step back or forward. Critics point out the greenwashed term that Tyson uses for this torturous practice is “individual housing.” This kind of advertising also erases the tremendous environmental destruction that can result from factory farming. When consumers are encouraged to buy “green” and “ethical” meat, they are encouraged not to think about the ways that any form of mass-meat production inherently contributes to  global warming.

Critics of greenwashing would argue that encouraging people concerned about global warming to “fight” it by changing their buying practices often only encourages companies to simply change the ways they advertise themselves: once they market themselves as “greener,” consumers can feel better about buying what are often more expensive “green” products, and help the corporation to turn a profit.

Unequal Burdens of Personal Responsibility

Critiques of the “you can stop global warming” movement are also concerned that harm can occur on an individual, not just corporate, level.

This individualist focus arguably takes attention away from the ways that the environmentally destructive practices that are driving global warming are not the result of individual failings, but rather of massive structures of capitalism. Sustained collective action, rather than individualized consumption choices, are required to combat these larger systems of oppression that fundamentally shape global warming.

When considering the potential impact of “what you can do to reduce global warming” lists, it is important, also, to ask: who is this “you” that these forms of media are talking to? Awareness website Time for Change refers to “a drought in Africa” because of “your increased yearly consumption of fuels,” which makes it clear that the intended “you” is not African, but probably North American. However, even within the presumed North American audience, the burden of personal responsibility arguably falls differently on people of color and people with dis/abilities.

“What you can do to stop global warming” lists that advocate for increased use of public transportation and biking instead of driving seem to work only for those who live in and near cities with accessible and affordable public transit systems. Public transportation systems–even relatively extensive ones like those found in New York City–are often of vastly unequal quality, cost, and distribution.

When cities are designed in ways that lead to modest-income workers of color being driven out of living in city centers where they are often employed and thus must have long commutes to work, these workers are disproportionately impacted by the very climate disasters that are becoming more frequent with global warming. “What you can do” lists encouraging the use of public transportation as a means to fight climate change take for granted the idea that the “you” the list is addressing are people who have cars and who have consistent, reliable access to public transportation–the structure of which is often biased against modest-income neighborhoods of color to begin with.

Bike riding is also often touted as something “you” can do to put a dent in rising carbon dioxide levels. But not everyone can simply hop on a bicycle: the “you” addressed here is clearly not a person with mobility-related dis/abilities who already has inadequate access to public transportation. Additionally, in neighborhoods like those in the South Bronx that the government and corporations target as dumping grounds, it can actually be unhealthy to ride your bicycle–when you exercise in highly polluted areas, you increase the amount of toxins you are inhaling. With asthma rates already devastatingly high in areas like this due to the practices of governments and corporations, encouraging people to ride their bikes as though everyone can is simply misguided. Individualist steps to address climate change can sometimes backfire, and raise other causes for concern.

So…can “you” stop global warming?

Alone? Perhaps not. Changing individual consumer practices shift some of the priorities of corporations, which puts at least the rhetoric of fighting climate change at the fore. However, these shifts don’t necessarily end environmentally destructive corporate practices. Collective action that targets systemic causes of global warming rather than displacing all the responsibility–and therefore, the blame–onto unconcerned individuals might be a common place to start.

 Resources

Huffington Post: 14 U.S. Cities That Could Disappear Over the Next Century, Thanks to Global Warming

About News: Top Ten Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming

Guardian: What’s the Carbon Footprint of… a New Car?

Greenwashing Index: About Greenwashing

Business Pundit: The Top 25 Greenwashed Products in America

Scientific American: How Meat Contributes to Global Warming

Animal Legal Defense Fund: Tyson Exposed by Former Suppliers’ Convictions

One Green Planet: Five Ways Factory Farming is Killing the Environment

CounterPunch: Global Warming is Economic Imperialism

Policy Link: For Millions of Low-Income Workers Left Behind by Public Transit Systems, Every Day’s a Snow Day

Daily News: Bronx, Brooklyn Residents Claim City Targeting Their Neighborhoods for Waste Transfer Stations

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Corporate Greenwashing and Global Warming appeared first on Law Street.