Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 16, 1993 TAG: 9301180349
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PETE D. CASTELLI III
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
LABOR, ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE COMMON CAUSE TO COOPERATE
YOU SEE it on the national news - the spotted owl vs. timber workers. Clean air and reduction of our use of coal and oil will come at the cost of millions of jobs. Environmental regulation is too costly for industry and will force companies to lay off workers.Environmentalists and workers are pitted against each other on such issues daily in our country. Yet in such hard economic times, does our stability, growth and economic recovery rely on choosing between bread on the table and clean air, water and a safe work place?
Companies have been taking advantage of the collision between nature and the economy for many years. Historically, there has been much success by corporations in keeping environmentalists and unions fighting with each other instead of focusing on cooperative solutions.
There are some real and unavoidable dilemmas that pose a soul-searching challenge to all involved:
In Wise County, United Mine Workers of America members, along with environmental activists, supported a ban on sewage-sludge application on strip-mined land. Both sides saw the economic and environmental disadvantages of this proposal. Shortly after this victory, the UMWA and environmental activists clashed on the issue of coal-plant fly ash being shipped back into the county to be spread on strip-mined property. Many of the miners said the ash disposal would keep coalfield jobs. (Some of the coal buyers would only buy the coal if the county would take the ash back.)
In Botetourt County, company officials stated that unless Tarmac could burn hazardous waste for profit, jobs and tax monies would be lost. This pitted local activists and workers living in the same community against each other.
On the national level, the spotted-owl issue, pitting environmentalists and loggers against one another, even became a campaign issue with our president, who said, "I choose people over owls," fanning the flames of conflict in truly black-and-white terms.
Although there is a need for jobs and a quality, safe environment, often these issues aren't just a matter of owls or people. The problem and potential solutions are not that black and white. A few key points:
Other nations, including Japan, have instituted aggressive pollution-prevention and -elimination programs and have not suffered for doing so. As a matter of fact, the Japanese feel that to reduce pollution and invest in technology will be a profit-maker for their businesses, not a hindrance, and will also create new jobs.
U.S. business, especially the petrochemical industry, has poured millions into lobbying to keep environmental regulations weak and unenforceable. When contamination occurs, they have made sure litigation carries on forever and the guilty party is never punished severely.
Our country operates on the standard that any pollution discharge is OK, until the victims or workers can prove there is a problem. If a discharge permit is violated, our federal and state agencies will give companies a slap on the wrist (if that) and plenty of time to correct the problem.
Usually, the Environmental Protection Agency and the government will institute new policy with no consideration of displaced workers. An example is the federal Superfund program. Millions of dollars invested to clean up dirt around a closed-down contaminated facility, which surely is needed, but no money to retrain or assist laid-off workers.
Shouldn't the workers be treated as well as dirt? There is a move to create a "Superfund" for workers to be paid for by the chemical companies, which will assist in retraining and job placement. Environmentalists and unions nationwide support this idea. Chemical manufacturing companies are among the richest in the world, so it makes sense that they support the workers who have labored to make them huge profits.
The fact is that community environmentalists and workers are the same people. In most localities, those who work in a chemical plant also live near the facility, so if there is a problem, they are getting double exposure. You can bet that if a plant is emitting toxics outside the plant, conditions are not safe for the workers inside either.
A recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that unemployment rates in states that are "toxic-industry dependent" have unemployment rates higher than the rest of the nation. This includes Texas, New Jersey, California and Louisiana. This demonstrates that pollution-intensive industries do not create more jobs. In fact, when you consider increased health costs for affected workers and nearby communities and waste clean-up, the economic and social costs of these industries are very high.
It makes good sense to reduce pollution and eliminate the most toxic compounds currently in use. By the time a polluting company has injured and sick workers, high insurance rates, fines for environmental damage and clean-up costs, it seems wiser to cooperate with communities and workers to run a clean operation.
There are many ways to use pollution-prevention, toxics-elimination, clean-up and corporate accountability as unifying issues for workers and environmental activists:
Workers know the plant best, and can more readily advise how a company can be safer and put out less pollution.
Although workers and environmentalists will not agree on all issues, there is common ground in demanding an industry to be a "good neighbor," eliminate use of all toxic chemicals when possible, and not contaminate a community's air, water and soil.
Grass-roots activists and labor can join together to challenge the current so-called "free trade" agreements (GATT) that will lower environmental and worker protection to the lowest common denominator. Communities and workers must band together to demand corporate accountability and keep jobs in the United States.
Sharing ideas and strategies at each other's meetings and events will lead to greater understanding and cooperation. It's easy for corporations to play environmentalists and workers against each other if there is no dialogue or understanding of each other.
In many parts of the country and our region, the dialogue between grass-roots environmental activists and workers is beginning.
In Martinsville, citizens protesting a trucking company's storing of hazardous waste in a low-income minority community were joined in a protest march by workers from DuPont, Tultex and a workman's-compensation advocacy group. They are now starting an alliance to work together on labor, health and environmental concerns in that region.
Although there has been some disagreement on other issues, UMWA members and Wise County grass-roots activists successfully worked together to demand a ban on sewage-sludge application on abandoned strip-mined land. Both recognized the environmental and economic downside of the process.
There is much common ground between workers and environmentalists. The power base that can be built to demand economic and social change in communities is unlimited. Corporations know that these types of alliances will destroy their threats of economic and job blackmail, which are used to divide communities. We can have jobs, economic development and a clean environment, but people must start working together to stop the waste industry and polluting corporations from setting the economic and environmental agenda for their communities. Together we can attract industry and develop our own business strategy that includes protecting health, jobs and the environment.
Pete D. Castelli III of Floyd is regional director of Citizen's Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc.