The Green Movement Is No Longer White

With names like Rachel Carson, John Muir, and Theodore Roosevelt, the environmental movement in the United States has a rich history that has featured some of the most progressive minds of their respective generations. The movement has worked to provide clean drinking water, establish national parks, promote sustainable lifestyles, and counteract the effects of global warming, to name a few. Despite the movement’s numerous successes, it has also drawn much criticism throughout the years, most notably for the idea that it is an elitist campaign run primarily by older, white citizens that lack diversity. While there is some validity to this claim, if one were to look more closely at the various organizations that strive to promote environmentalism, they would undoubtedly find this to be untrue. Truth be told, minorities in the United States are just as involved, if not more involved, than white Americans in the environmental movement; however, it is easy for one to assume it is a “white” movement due to the fact that minorities are severely underrepresented at the management level within the most prominent organizations such as Greenpeace. 

In order to dispel the notion that the environmental movement in the United States is mostly an elite movement lacking diversity, it is first important to understand the reasons this stereotype has been perpetuated in the first place. One of the primary reasons many believe there is no diversity is due to the fact that the faces of the environmental movement have lacked diversity. From Henry David Thoreau to Aldo Leopold to Al Gore, those whom the general public has come to closely associate with environmentalism all have one common physical characteristic: they are white. As a result, many have come to believe nearly all of those involved in the movement are white. 

If one were to dig deeper into the situation, they would quickly find that not only are the most prominent voices primarily white males, but the leaders of the highest-profile environmental groups in the country are also white. At the grassroots level, most of the work is done via volunteers, with most environmental groups having only a handful of actually paid employees. As was mentioned, whites hold 93% of the management positions at the National Wildlife Federation. Unfortunately, after looking at other groups, they are not an anomaly, but instead the norm. 

Take for instance the Sierra Club. Founded by John Muir, the group is one of the most influential environmental groups in the country. Their primary goals include preserving natural environments through the use of lobbying, litigation, and becoming involved in the political process. The group was one of the primary voices that helped craft and initiate the Clean Air Act of 1990 (Woody 201).

For a group with liberal agendas such as conserving forests and limiting carbon emissions, one might assume that diversity would also be high on their list of priorities. That is not the case, however. Based on the information presented on the Sierra Club’s official website, there is essentially no diversity in the organization’s Board of Directors. Of the fifteen members, only one of the fifteen is of a minority race, that being Mr. Aaron Mair. 

The other fourteen members, or 93.3% of the Board of Directors, are comprised of all white males or females. These are the core group that runs and governs the Sierra Club, and there is absolutely no diversity. Situations such as this one have caused minorities to become suspicious of environmental groups’ motives. The practice of appointing only one or two minorities to a group of directors comprised mostly of whites is known as token representation.

Minorities often feel insulted by what they perceive to be a token representation because it makes them feel their voices and concerns are not being heard. Some feel the only reason for the appointments is to make the group appear to value diversity when in actuality, they do not have the interests of minorities in mind when making critical decisions. Many have commented on the environmental movement’s failure to reach out to minorities. Frederick D. Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund since 1984, has stated, “The truth is that environmental groups have done a miserable job of reaching out to minorities” (Melosi 6). 

Another prominent environmental group with a poor record when it comes to diversity is the World Wild Life Fund for Nature. On the organization’s website, some of the main objectives mentioned include preventing climate change, deforestation, illegal wildlife trade, overfishing, and pollution. Front and center on the website’s homepage is a picture of an African woman from Cameroon, as well as a woman of Asian descent. Of note, one thing you do not see on the front page of the website is a single picture of a Caucasian. 

Instead, the WWF conveniently saved the pictures of white people for the sections of the site titled “Experts” and “Leadership.” Exploring the two sections, the lack of diversity of remarkable, especially for an organization that operates across the globe. The organization’s experts, including positions ranging from Climate and Business Manager to Managing Director in Namibia to Director of Humanitarian Partnerships, are nearly all white. 

Of the 39 experts, only 4 are non-whites, meaning 89.7% of the experts within the WWF are white. This is a startling figure, again, especially when considering the fact that the WWF is a global entity. The same holds true for the organization’s leadership. Based on the WWF’s website, the Executive Team, Board of Directors, and Honorary Directors are composed of 45 members in total. Of the 45 total members, only 3 of them are not white. Also worth noting is the fact that the Executive Team, which is the most powerful group within the WWF, is all white, with 10 of the 14 members being white males. 

One final statistic worth discussing regarding the lack of diversity at the top levels of the environmental movement is the country’s Ecological Base. Despite the fact that minorities comprise roughly 31% of the total population in the United States, the country’s Ecological Base is 89% white. Not only is the base 89% white, but also 82% are older than 35 and 78% have attended some college (Enderle 7). When 31% of the country is made up of minorities and only 11% are employed in ecological careers, the numbers clearly do not add up. 

Lacking diversity and inclusivity, environmental education institutions face a serious problem going forward if they do not change their ways. Minorities comprise a growing portion of the electorate each cycle, and with most environmental organizations achieving sustainability via volunteers and donations, it is not inconceivable to think they will eventually demand to be represented (and not in a token manner) at the executive level. There is no denying that those involved recognize the need for diversity and its importance, but many are unfamiliar with how to reach out to minorities (Enderle 6). With that said, there is a great difference between recognizing the need for something and making a conscious effort to actually make it happen, which is what needs to be done if environmental organizations hope to shed the perception that they are elitist groups run by white males. 

With a lack of diversity at the top of the most influential environmental organizations in the United States, it is easy to see how the general public could perceive that the movement is primarily made up of white citizens. The fact remains, however, that minorities are also very involved in the process, despite the fact that they continue to be grossly underrepresented in managerial and paying positions. Although they are not the face of the movement, minorities have, in many cases, surpassed whites in terms of support for environmental causes. Not only do minorities have stronger polling numbers when it comes to environmental causes, but they also volunteer for environmental causes in numbers that are nearly equal to whites. Minority groups in Congress also have an exceptional voting record when it comes to important environmental issues.

For example, blacks have shown great support for stricter environmental regulation in recent years. A 2006 poll was conducted to determine white and black citizens’ opinions regarding environmental issues and whether they were concerned about the local conditions. One question that was posed by the surveyors was whether the resident was concerned about exposure to waste and pollution. Polling results would surprise many who believe only whites care about the environment. 

Of those who were polled, 58% of black respondents claimed they were concerned about possible exposure, while only 16% of whites responded with the same answer. Two other questions that were brought up during the survey were the quality of local drinking water and concerns about the overall environmental quality of the neighborhood. Regarding the quality of local drinking water, 55% of blacks said they were concerned, whereas only 20% of whites voiced concern. Likewise, 62% of black respondents claimed they were very concerned about the overall environmental quality of their neighborhood. Whites, on the other hand, generally were not very concerned, with only 20% of the respondents claiming they were worried (Jones and Rainey 485). 

As a result of their concerns, black residents are not only more worried about their health than whites, but they also believe more money should be spent to help solve the problems. In the same poll, both were asked if local public agencies had spent enough time and money on environmental issues in their communities. 35% of black respondents strongly disagreed, saying that not enough money and time had been spent. Only 14% of whites provided the same answer – a stark contrast in opinion. (Jones and Rainey 488). 

Likewise, the poll also showed that many blacks felt that they were being excluded from the process and their opinions were not being heard. When asked if they had been involved in the decision-making process, 31% of blacks strongly disagreed. 27% also said local agencies did not ask members of the community for input. Overall, the poll demonstrated that blacks are much more concerned about environmental conditions and feel that the government is not doing enough to solve the problem. 

The support for environmental regulation from black residents has been shown to remain relatively consistent. When polled over multiple years, both during a recession and during profitable economic periods, black support for funding environmental protection remained relatively constant. This is despite the fact that some expected it to decline due to the hierarchy of needs theory (Whittaker, Segura, and Bowler 437). Whereas support from other groups declined during the same periods, African-American support remained steady. 

Latinos have also proven to be ardent supporters of environmental issues as well, although research and polling is a bit more limited. In one poll, Latino students scored higher than English speaking students when asked how concerned they were with environmental measures (Kalof et al. 115). Latinos are one of the fastest-growing segments of the United States population. Courting their support would obviously be a wise move for environmental organizations going forward. 

Environmental support involves more than answering questions; it also involves taking action. Most of the grassroots work in high-profile groups is done via volunteers, whether it involves soliciting donations, helping build a stronger community, or constructing and restoring parks. In general, without volunteers, there would be no green movement. As a result, it is important for the groups to have participants willing to donate their time if they hope to implement their goals. 

Each year the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases a report that details how many people volunteered for specific causes, broken down by race, gender, age, etc. Minorities clocked in a lot of hours in 2012. The report detailed what percentage of volunteers chose to dedicate their time to environmental causes, and minorities compared favorably to whites. Although whites ranked highest with 2.8 percent of its volunteers choosing to focus on environmental causes, Latinos were a close second at 1.9 percent. Blacks and Asians also spent considerable time volunteering for environmental causes, at 1.2 and 1.7 percent, respectively. By looking at the hard numbers, it is easy to see that the environmental movement at the grassroots level is not comprised solely of whites as some like to believe, but is instead a coalescence of all races and genders hoping to advocate for better conditions through hard work and dedication. 

Lastly, minority coalitions in Congress have been praised for their outstanding voting records regarding environmental issues. A League of Conservation Voters report in 1983 claimed that the Congressional Black Caucus had the best environmental voting record of any coalition in the House, with support for the issues increasing even more during a 1997 report (Graham 48). One of the primary reasons behind Congressional support by minority groups is due to an extensive history of environmental racism in the United States. Environmental racism is essentially placing hazardous waste sites away from affluent neighborhoods and in poorer neighborhoods that are more typically habited by minorities. As a result, minorities are at greater risk of being exposed to pollution and other potentially dangerous chemicals. 

Despite the opposition of many minority residents, hazardous waste sites are disproportionately placed near neighborhoods that are primarily made up of minority residents. In Houston, it was determined that six of the eight solid waste incinerators and all five municipal landfills were located in predominantly black neighborhoods (Higgins 284). The siting can be attributed to their lack of access to local lawmakers who ultimately have the influence to keep harmful, unwanted waste sites away from the neighborhood (Mohai and Saha 345). It is therefore important for Congressional members to stand up for their constituents and protect the environment as much as possible due to the fact that their supporters have little leverage at the local level. 

Another reason for environmental support is due to inequities in air quality and workplace conditions. The EPA has noted racial divisions in air quality since 1971. Blacks and Hispanics form a significantly higher portion of residents in neighborhoods that are considered “air quality non-attainment areas” (Higgins 283). Based on this fact, one can see why minority residents were much more concerned than whites with possible exposure to pollution, as was previously mentioned. 

In addition, minorities are at much greater risk to be exposed to other hazardous conditions due to poor housing and hazardous workplace conditions. Due to the high concentration of minorities in the industrial and labor forces, they are faced with the possible risk of serious injury, whereas whites are not subjected to the same conditions for the most part. For instance, black workers have a 37 percent greater chance than whites of suffering an occupational injury or illness. They also have a 20 percent greater chance of dying during a workplace-related injury than their white counterparts (Higgins 282). 

Hazardous chemicals are also common in the labor industry. Migrant farmworkers are frequently exposed to harmful pesticides and chemicals that have been proven to cause cancers and other illnesses. The migrant workforce is composed of 75 percent Spanish-speaking and 20 percent black workers (Higgins 282). Making up only 5 percent of the migrant farmworkers, whites are essentially granted an exemption from these hazardous conditions. 

Occupational hazards such as the ones just described are not to be taken lightly. With most workers receiving substandard wages and poor or no healthcare, the average life expectancy for a migrant farmworker is more than 20 years less than the national average (Higgins 282). Not only are minority workers at risk of encountering deadly chemicals, but their children are also more likely to be exposed as well. In addition to occupational hazards, urban air pollution, coupled with poor housing conditions, results in children in minority neighborhoods to be at risk of lead poisoning. Even in families with the same level of income ($6,000 or less per year), 68 percent of black children have significant blood lead levels, while only 36 percent of white children in the same income bracket have the same condition (Higgins 283). Hazardous workplace and housing conditions are just two of the many reasons minorities have become more engaged in the environmental movement in recent years. 

Going forward, it crucial that environmental groups, such as Sierra Club and WWF, focus on issues that are plaguing urban communities if they hope to broaden their support. Although members in minority communities have shown they are willing to vote in favor of new regulations, their vote cannot be taken for granted. If the top environmental organizations hope to sustain their influence, they need more than just votes at the ballot box, they also need grassroots support and donations. With minorities comprising a larger percentage of the populace than ever before, white influence is waning while minority influence is increasing. 

Therefore, it is important for black, Hispanic, and Asian members of the community to be appointed to meaningful positions at the executive level so they have a direct line to members in low-income neighborhoods. One of the primary issues in the past that has sparked the environmental justice movement is the feeling that no one is there to listen to the concerns of minority members when it comes to issues such as landfill placement. Many have claimed they are disenchanted and distrustful of the groups due to the feeling they are being used as a token minority to better the groups’ reputations and that they care more about suburban whites than poorer urban residents. 

Ultimately, it is clear that the environmental movement is no longer a white movement, but instead a movement of all races, genders, and social classes. With empirical proof in the form of volunteer numbers and voting records, there is no doubt minorities play just as large of a role in the process as white citizens, but the movement is looked at as an elitist coalition by many due to a lack of diversity at the top of the food chain. If the top environmental groups can find a way to reach out to minorities and bridge the gap between affluent whites and minorities in impoverished neighborhoods by promoting more non-whites to important leadership positions, it will not only improve its reputation by dispelling the notion that it is an elitist culture that stresses inclusivity, but it will also increase its influential exponentially in the process by involving more citizens in the movement. 

Works Cited

"Board of Directors: Meet the Board." Sierraclub.org. Sierra Club, n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.<http://www.sierraclub.org/bod/meet-the-board/default.aspx>.

“Economic News Release.” Bls.gov. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.t04.htm>.

Enderle, Emily. "Framing the Discussion." Diversity and the Future of the U.S. Environmental Movement. Yale University, n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2013. <http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/ downloads/0-9/04-Enderle-Diversity.pdf>.

"Experts." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://worldwildlife.org/experts>.

Graham, Otis L. Environmental Politics and Policy, 1960s-1990s. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 2000. Print.

Higgins, Robert R. "Race & Environmental Equity: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Issue in the Policy Process." Polity 26.2 (1993): 281-300. JSTOR. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235032>.

Jones, Robert Emmet, and Shirley A. Rainey. "Examining Linkages between Race, Environmental Concern, Health, and Justice in a Highly Polluted Community of Color." Journal of Black Studies 36.4 (2006): 473-96. JSTOR. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40034767>.

Kalof, Linda, Thomas Dietz, Gregory Guagnano, and Paul C. Stern. "Race, Gender and Environmentalism: The Atypical Values and Beliefs of White Men." Race, Gender & Class 9.2 (2002): 112-30. JSTOR. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675022>.

"Leadership." WorldWildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://worldwildlife.org/about/leadership>.

Melosi, Martin V. "Equity, Eco-Racism and Environmental History." Forest History Society 19.3 (1995): 1-16. JSTOR. 1995. Web. 3 Sept. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3984909>.

Mohai, Paul, and Robin Saha. "Racial Inequality in the Distribution of Hazardous Waste: A National-Level Reassessment." Social Problems 54.3 (2007): 343-70. JSTOR. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2007.54.3.343>.

Whittaker, Matthew, Gary M. Segura, and Shaun Bowler. "Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes Toward Environmental Protection in California: Is "Environmentalism" Still a White Phenomenon?" Political Research Quarterly 58.3 (2005): 435-47. Print.

Woody, Theresa. "Grassroots in Actions: The Sierra Club's Role in the Campaign to Restore the Kissimmee River." Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12.2 (1993): 201-05. JSTOR. Web. 03 Sept. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1467353>.