In “The Flood Next Time”, Murphy introduces the idea of a “flexible adaptation pathway”. Although, this idea seems logical it simply exemplifies this common attitude of investing in the solution opposed to investing in prevention. We have seen this as a prominent structural issue that continues to be overlooked.
A common example is that of hurricane Katrina. This hurricane is considered to have been massively devastating. However, in reality its impact could have been lessened had the infrastructure like the levees in the poor neighborhoods, been fixed. This particular event created the question if whether natural disasters are truly “natural”. Of course hurricanes are arguable a natural occurrence giving that they are a result of nature but the impact and disaster they cause is not natural. If the infrastructure and preventive measures are in place natural disasters like these can be avoided. More often than not the infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods is very poor and underinvested. That is why very often low income individuals are more detrimentally impacted by “natural disasters”.
Neil Smith’s “There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster” explores this idea of vulnerability. Who remains more vulnerable during natural disasters? As I said before low-income individuals often minorities are more vulnerable. This is not coincidental but very much systematic. In our corporate city we surround ourselves around the market and profit. If something doesn’t produce revenue or profit it is not a priority to be invested in. That is why as explained in “The Disaster Inside the Disaster” certain areas like lower Manhattan experience reinvestment and rapid rebuilding while others are left to perish. This dichotomy shows the environmental injustice present in the city.
The environmental injustice in the city is present in many ways. It’s present in the form of disaster capitalism which entails taking advantage of a disaster to create a stronger market and devalue the public. With this mindset privatization essentially strengthens and government support weakens. Similarly, when a low-income area is reinvested it is in order to promote gentrification. This introduces another issue known as environmental gentrification. With environmental gentrification low-income individuals are essentially deprived of healthy neighborhoods filled with parks and green land. The moment a low income neighborhood begins to redevelop our capitalist system causes property values to increase and the area becomes more desirable and displaces the long term low income residents. This repetitive cycle creates the idea that sustainable environments are only meant for those who can afford it. Green land and toxic free residential areas are not meant for low income people.
Low income people are victims to the structural corporate system which relies heavily on private development and a decrease in government investment. Environmental injustice shows that the city’s corporate mindset leaves low income people to fight an ‘unwinnable’ battle against the structural system even on things that seem like basic necessities like strong infrastructure and clean air.
Additional Resources:
Checker M. (2011) Wiped Out by the “Greenwave”: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability City & Society, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 210–229
Klein N (2007) DISASTER CAPITALISM The new economy of catastrophe
Smith N. (2006) There’s No Such Thing As a Natural Disaster
Hi Karen!
I so agree with you about the idea that our government has played a role in the destruction our poor neighborhoods/minority areas. These area’s, where most people already lacked insurance and proper development of the buildings they live in, are due to our governments inability to provide help to those who are most vulnerable. Area’s around the financial district, where the effects of 9/11 were disastrous, had so much money poured into the redevelopment of the area. Now, it is a residential area where the rich live comfortably. But it’s surprising to think that there are still area’s that are undergoing reconstruction, or are not even being reconstructed, in New Orleans and New York. Personally, I know people who live on Long Island and their towns are still being reconstructed or were only finished very recently, and it’s due to the fact that it is the poorest section in the town.
This is also the first I have heard of environmental gentrification, or at least the term. We’ve learned about this time and time again, starting with the construction of Central Park and the removal of poor farmers for the rich to move in and have a nice view of the park. Societies morals have not changed since the discovery of America, and for some reason it is an insane idea that poor people also deserve to have parks and to live in an environmentally healthy area. And this just follows this idea that our society only keeps things that contribute to society, and society doesn’t believe poor people contribute anything so why should they deserve anything? And now, with the head of the EPA being in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry, it’s difficult to believe that anything will get better for these poor communities that already suffer from environmentally hazardous areas.
Heya i抦 for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and help others like you helped me.