Berkeley’s Dirty Little Secret

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/16/BAK314OM75.DTL

In one of the America’s most environmentally forward cities, a dirty secret has been festering. USA Today reported that three Berkeley schools ranked in the top 1% of those most at risk for toxic air emissions. The reason for this extremely high level of airborne pollution has been attributed to Pacific Steel Castings Inc., the nation’s 4th largest manufacturer. The data for this report came from the EPA which evaluated 127,000 schools nationwide. While the article notes that this data is not synonymous with that used for standard emissions reporting, one can certainly ascertain that this community has been saddled with an extreme level of air pollution.

This information, as well as data collected by activist groups performing independent tests, has provided a basis for the claim that Berkeley has not held Pacific Steel Castings Inc. to the community standard. Essentially Berkeley has been inconsistent in its application of green energy principles and held Pacific Steel Castings harmless. In the simplest of terms, Pacific Steel has been polluting at higher levels than it should. While this in and of itself is problematic, the larger issue at hand is one of environmental justice.

Overall Berkeley is a typical city with a representative demographic and socioeconomic mix. However, Pacific Steel and the three Berkeley schools noted in the top 1% of at risk schools for toxic exposure reside in West Berkeley. West Berkeley also happens to be primarily comprised of low income Latino and African American residents. It becomes rapidly apparent why this issue falls into the realm of environmental justice. Berkeley, a city that has a reputation for being hell-bent on all things environmental, has allowed Pacific Steel to emit higher levels of air pollution in one of its economically suppressed neighborhoods.

Because Pacific Steel has been present in this location for some 70 years it is likely that neighborhood transition explains the surrounding demographics. Using market rationality it is likely that residents with the resources to do so moved away from the area over the years. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this really isn’t a discriminatory issue of pollution facility location. However, this is obviously an issue of enforcement. Given the known limitations of time and resources for economically suppressed areas it is likely that the affected individuals lack the political power to ameliorate their situation.