The Environmental Justice movement (EJ) movement represents a profound paradigm shift in how environmental issues are understood and addressed, fundamentally linking ecological concerns with social equity and human rights. Born from the lived experiences of marginalized communities disproportionately burdened by pollution and environmental degradation, it challenges the traditional, often Eurocentric and conservation-focused, narrative of environmentalism. At its core, the EJ movement asserts that all people, regardless of race, income, or national origin, have a right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, and to meaningfully participate in decisions that affect their well-being. It is a struggle for recognition, redistribution, and procedural justice, seeking to dismantle systemic inequalities that lead to the clustering of hazardous facilities, lack of access to environmental amenities, and exclusion from decision-making processes in communities of color and low-income populations.
This powerful movement emerged not from established environmental organizations, but from the grassroots efforts of communities of color and Indigenous peoples, who recognized that their environmental struggles were inextricably linked to broader issues of civil rights, racial discrimination, and economic inequality. It brought to the forefront the concept of “environmental racism”—the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards on communities of color—and demanded that environmental protection be viewed through the lens of social justice. The historical trajectory of the Environmental Justice movement reveals a slow but steady accumulation of local resistances, academic validation, and policy advocacy, transforming what began as isolated community grievances into a cohesive and influential national, and increasingly international, force for change.
Precursors and Early Seeds of the Movement (Pre-1980s)
The roots of the Environmental Justice movement extend deeply into the various social justice struggles of the 20th century, particularly the Civil Rights Movement, the Labor Movement, and early anti-toxic activism. While the term “environmental justice” had not yet been coined, the foundational principles of equity, self-determination, and the right to a healthy environment were implicit in many of these early fights.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s laid critical groundwork, emphasizing equal protection under the law, challenging segregation, and advocating for the rights of marginalized communities. Although not explicitly environmental, many civil rights struggles had an underlying environmental dimension. For instance, the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers’ strike, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, was ostensibly a labor dispute but profoundly highlighted the intersection of race, poverty, and hazardous working conditions. Black sanitation workers faced deplorable pay, dangerous equipment, and a lack of basic safety protections, illustrating how racial discrimination translated directly into exposure to unhealthy environments. This and similar struggles showed that the fight for racial equality was often also a fight for basic health and safety, which are integral components of environmental well-being.
Concurrently, the Labor Movement, particularly efforts by farmworkers and industrial laborers, also contributed to the nascent EJ consciousness. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers (UFW) spearheaded campaigns in the 1960s and 70s against the use of harmful pesticides that imperiled the health of predominantly Latino farmworkers and their families. Their fight connected the dots between exploitative labor practices, racial discrimination, and environmental contamination, demonstrating that occupational health was an environmental justice issue. Similarly, struggles for improved working conditions in factories and mines, often led by immigrant and minority workers, revealed how industrial pollution and hazardous exposures were disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable segments of the workforce.
Beyond organized labor, numerous localized struggles against pollution emerged across the United States, often in predominantly Black, Indigenous, and low-income communities. These grassroots efforts, though fragmented, represented early forms of “anti-toxics” activism. Communities living near industrial facilities, landfills, and incinerators began to notice patterns of illness, birth defects, and reduced quality of life that they linked to environmental contamination. However, their pleas often went unheeded by regulatory agencies and mainstream environmental groups, who were largely focused on conservation, wilderness preservation, and broad national policies like clean air and water acts, without a specific lens on the disproportionate impacts on vulnerable human populations. This perceived indifference from mainstream environmentalism fostered a growing sense that their concerns were not merely “environmental” in the traditional sense, but deeply rooted in systemic racial and economic injustices.
The Watershed Moment: Warren County, North Carolina (1982)
The widely recognized catalyst for the formal Environmental Justice movement occurred in Warren County, North Carolina, in 1982. This pivotal event crystallized the concept of environmental racism and drew national attention to the deliberate targeting of marginalized communities for hazardous waste disposal. The crisis unfolded when the state of North Carolina decided to site a hazardous waste landfill in Afton, a small, predominantly Black and low-income community within Warren County, to dispose of 32,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). These PCBs had been illegally dumped along 240 miles of state roads in 14 counties.
Despite fervent opposition from local residents, the state proceeded with the landfill’s construction. Residents, with the support of civil rights leaders, staged widespread nonviolent protests and acts of civil disobedience. Over 500 people were arrested, including prominent figures like Dr. Benjamin Chavis Jr. of the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice (UCCCRJ), who later coined the term “environmental racism.” Although the protests did not ultimately prevent the landfill from being built and receiving the PCB-contaminated soil, they succeeded in drawing national media attention and exposing the racial and economic dimensions of environmental decision-making. The Warren County protests became a symbolic battleground, illustrating how communities lacking political and economic power were routinely sacrificed for the benefit of industrial and state interests. This event fundamentally shifted the narrative, providing tangible evidence that environmental burdens were not randomly distributed but followed patterns of racial discrimination and economic vulnerability.
Early Research and Data Collection (Mid-1980s)
The visibility gained from the Warren County protests prompted a demand for empirical data to substantiate anecdotal evidence of environmental racism. A landmark study, “Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States,” published in 1987 by the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice (UCCCRJ), provided precisely this crucial validation. Led by Dr. Benjamin Chavis Jr. and Charles Lee, the report was the first comprehensive national study to systematically investigate the correlation between race, socioeconomic status, and the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities.
The UCCCRJ report’s findings were stark and irrefutable: race was the most significant factor in determining the location of commercial hazardous waste facilities in the United States, even more significant than income. It found that communities with a majority of racial or ethnic minority residents were far more likely to host such facilities. Specifically, it showed that three out of five Black and Hispanic Americans lived in communities with uncontrolled toxic waste sites. The study identified patterns where the proportion of racial minorities in a community was the strongest predictor of the presence of a hazardous waste site, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors. This rigorous empirical evidence transformed the discourse, moving environmental justice from the realm of anecdotal accusation to a data-driven indictment of systemic inequality. The UCCCRJ report provided an indispensable foundation for the burgeoning movement, furnishing activists, policymakers, and academics with the factual basis needed to advocate for change and challenge environmental decision-making processes.
Formalization and National Recognition (Late 1980s - 1990s)
The momentum generated by Warren County and the UCCCRJ report culminated in the formal establishment and national recognition of the Environmental Justice movement. A pivotal moment was the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, held in Washington, D.C., in October 1991. Organized by grassroots activists with support from the UCCCRJ, this historic gathering brought together more than 1,000 diverse environmental justice leaders, academics, and activists from across the United States and several other countries. It was a transformative event, creating a unified voice and a common agenda for the disparate local struggles.
The most enduring outcome of the 1991 Summit was the adoption of the “Principles of Environmental Justice.” This seventeen-point document became the defining statement of the movement, articulating its core values, demands, and vision. The Principles went beyond simply calling for an end to disproportionate pollution; they articulated a comprehensive vision for social change, encompassing self-determination, intergenerational equity, corporate accountability, a rejection of “pollution as a right,” and the sacredness of Mother Earth. They called for a redefinition of “environment” to include where people “live, work, play, and learn,” thereby broadening the scope of environmentalism beyond traditional conservation and wilderness protection. The Principles asserted that environmental protection must be integrated with civil rights, economic justice, and community empowerment.
The growing pressure from the EJ movement also began to compel federal agencies to acknowledge and address environmental inequities. In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the Office of Environmental Equity (later renamed the Office of Environmental Justice). This was a significant step, signaling the federal government’s recognition of the issue. However, the true landmark federal action came with President Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12898, issued on February 11, 1994. Titled “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” the order directed all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. This executive order mandated federal attention to EJ, requiring agencies to promote public participation, collect data, and develop strategies to prevent environmental injustice. While implementation varied across agencies and over time, EO 12898 legally enshrined environmental justice as a federal imperative, providing a framework for future policy development and advocacy.
Expansion and Evolution (2000s - Present)
Since the foundational events of the 1980s and 1990s, the Environmental Justice movement has continued to expand its scope, deepen its analysis, and integrate into broader social justice and environmental discourse. The movement moved beyond its initial focus on hazardous waste sites to encompass a much wider array of environmental harms and benefits.
One major area of expansion has been air pollution and water pollution, particularly in industrial corridors often dubbed “sacrifice zones.” Areas like “Cancer Alley” along the Mississippi River in Louisiana, where predominantly Black communities are surrounded by petrochemical plants, became powerful symbols of the ongoing struggle against chronic industrial pollution and its health consequences. The EJ movement highlighted how lax regulatory enforcement and permitting practices disproportionately expose these communities to toxic air and water contaminants. The scope also broadened to include issues such as food deserts (lack of access to healthy, affordable food in low-income communities), inadequate public transit, lack of green spaces, and the siting of undesirable land uses like freeways and incinerators.
The concept of “climate justice” emerged as a critical intersection within the EJ movement. It recognizes that climate change disproportionately impacts communities of color and low-income populations, who have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions but are most vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and climate-induced displacement. Climate justice advocates assert that solutions to climate change must be equitable, involve frontline communities in decision-making, and address historical injustices. This has led to an emphasis on just transitions away from fossil fuels, investment in renewable energy that benefits local communities, and adaptation strategies that prioritize vulnerable populations.
The academic field of environmental justice has also matured, leading to a proliferation of research, scholarship, and educational programs. This academic work has provided rigorous analysis of the social, economic, and political factors driving environmental inequality, contributing to policy development and public awareness. Tools such as GIS mapping and data visualization (e.g., EPA’s EJSCREEN) have become instrumental in identifying environmental justice communities and quantifying cumulative impacts. Litigation and advocacy efforts have also grown, with EJ organizations increasingly engaging in legal challenges against polluting industries and discriminatory permitting decisions.
Furthermore, the movement has embraced increasingly intersectional approaches, recognizing that race, class, gender, immigration status, disability, and other identities intersect to create unique vulnerabilities and experiences of environmental injustice. For example, Indigenous communities continue to fight for land rights, sovereignty, and protection against resource extraction that threatens their cultural heritage and traditional ways of life. The disproportionate impact of climate change on women, particularly in the Global South, has also brought a gendered lens to climate justice.
Despite significant strides, the Environmental Justice movement continues to face formidable challenges. Communities of color and low-income populations still bear a disproportionate burden of pollution and environmental hazards. Enforcement of existing EJ policies remains inconsistent, and many communities struggle against the power of entrenched industrial interests and systemic racism. Issues like “green gentrification,” where environmental improvements in disadvantaged neighborhoods lead to displacement of original residents due to rising property values, present new complexities. Nevertheless, the movement’s persistent advocacy continues to push for systemic change, demanding not just mitigation of harm, but also affirmative action to create healthy, equitable, and sustainable communities for all.
The Environmental Justice movement has fundamentally reshaped the discourse around environmentalism, transforming it from a predominantly white, middle-class concern focused on wilderness preservation into a broad, inclusive struggle for human rights, social equity, and a healthy planet for all. It has illuminated the undeniable links between environmental degradation, racial discrimination, and economic inequality, proving that environmental protection cannot be separated from the pursuit of justice. By centering the experiences and voices of those most impacted by pollution, the movement has introduced a critical moral and ethical dimension to environmental policy and advocacy.
Born from the resilience of grassroots activism and validated by compelling research, the EJ movement has successfully pushed for recognition within governmental structures, notably through the establishment of dedicated offices and executive orders. Its enduring strength lies in its diverse, community-led nature, empowering marginalized populations to define their own environmental priorities and demand accountability from corporations and governments. The principles articulated over three decades ago continue to guide its efforts, advocating for systemic change rather than merely superficial fixes, and promoting a vision of sustainable development that genuinely benefits all segments of society.
The legacy of the Environmental Justice movement is a permanent shift in how environmental issues are perceived and addressed globally. It continues to be a vibrant, evolving force, adapting to new challenges such as climate change and urban development while holding firm to its core demand for fairness and dignity for all communities. Its history serves as a powerful testament to the power of collective action in challenging entrenched injustices and fostering a more equitable and sustainable future.