Sustainable development includes not only environmental protection but also social justice, economic equity, and fair distribution of wealth and burden. In order to create ecologically sustainable societies, it is very important that mainstream environmentalists begin to incorporate social issues into discussions, for their current distinction between what is nature and must be protected and what is human and must be eliminated will only create a polarized society that will benefit neither the environmentalists themselves or the lay people. Environmentalists specifically have to consider issues of job security, social justice, and the distribution of wealth when discussing environmental policy.

Having work and job security is what most people worry about before environmental protection. All people have to work to provide for themselves and often their families. It is not to the environmentalists’ advantage that they devalue the significance of work in society and emphasize solely the protection of nature over the needs of people. Ramachandra Guha argues that the obsession with unspoiled, “natural” wilderness is a uniquely American phenomenon because it is oftentimes the middle to upper class, White environmentalists who do not worry about not having a job that emphasize the need to protect the wilderness for its beauty. The wilderness has become one more amenity, one more aesthetic enjoyment for the well-off to consume in American consumer society.

Richard White argues that environmentalists depict nature as a place of leisure and play and the built environment as a place of work and pollution. It is self-defeating for environmentalists to differentiate between nature and work because work is so integral to society that one cannot expect everyone not to work. The fact that environmentalists have put so many people out of work gave rise to the “wise-use” movement. Although the wise-use movement may have begun with good intentions by working class people, it has become the main venue for corporations to advance their own anti-environmental agendas.

An example in which work conflicts with environmental protection is the shrimp maricultures in Honduras. Honduras became heavily dependent on its shrimp exports as one of its main sources of revenue during the 1980s because its economy that used to depend on fish export worsened as overfishing destroyed the fishing industry. From 1978 to 1988, the total production of cultivated shrimp rose 1611% from 130 metric tons to 2225 metric tons and the cultivated area grew 280% from 1450 hectares to 5500 hectares. By 1993, the shrimp industry brought in about $40 million in revenue. It provided jobs to 12,000 people. Honduras’ economy grew drastically from the shrimp industry. But the environmental impacts were severe. The environmental impacts included the loss of mangrove ecosystems, worsening of the region’s water quality, mixing of wild shrimp and cultivated shrimp, eutrophication, contamination from pesticides, and habitat loss for regional birds, amphibians, and mammals.

It is easy to understand after seeing the Honduras example why environmentalists would be skeptical of work. But if Honduras took on a more ecologically sustainable approach to growing its economy, it could have managed its shrimp maricultures in such ways that it preserved the mangrove ecosystems, kept the water clean, and preserved the habitats of wildlife while still providing employment for people. The number of jobs available will surely be reduced but the environmental damages would decrease as well. Balance is the key when trying to incorporate work into environmental protection. Excluding humans from protected nature would be impossible and inefficient, and letting societies grow exponentially in population and economy would be ecologically catastrophic and unfair to other living beings.

It is once again the same environmentalists from middle to upper class, White backgrounds who have never had to worry about living near toxic areas that claim that grass-roots movements led by people of color and the poor are not “environmental” enough, that they care more about more equal distribution of environmental hazards. These environmentalists can afford to be activists for the protection of endangered species and ecosystems because their own livelihoods are safe and secure. On the other hand, the livelihoods of traditionally underrepresented people such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and poor whites are threatened daily by nearby pollution. Colorado College recently published its 2006 State of the Rockies Report Card in which it reveals that in 23 metropolitan regions of the Rocky Mountains those who live near toxic areas are on average 15% more likely to be non-whites and poor whites than those not living near toxic areas. The non-whites are 16% more likely be Hispanic.

Environmental justice is the form of social justice most relevant in discussions of environmental policy and it is the idea that all people, regardless of race, class and ethnicity, should have equal share of ecological benefits and burdens. While environmentalists may be partially right in pointing out that the grass-roots organizations are really more concerned about their own health than the health of the environment, it is usually not the case that these organizations stop caring about the health of the environment once their own health has been secured. When the residents of Love Canal became severely ill, Lois Gibbs, a resident of Love Canal whose children suffered damage from exposure to underground nuclear waste, fought for the immediate removal of all Love Canal residents into a safe area. It would be correct to say that she initially started the movement with the sole intention of keeping her and her neighbors’ children safe. But it has become clear years later, when she formed the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, that she has incorporated environmental protection into her activism. During an interview, she stated that she formed the organization to spread environmental consciousness among local people. She explained that while mainstream environmental organizations tended to focus on wildlife and natural habitats, her organization was more community-based and people-oriented.

It is sometimes a wonder how environmentalists can cry out solely for environmental protection without seeing the social factors that follow conservation. How do environmentalists hope to achieve the protection of endangered habitats and wildlife when a quarter of the human population is itself endangered due to famines, war, and health hazards? It is important for environmental strategies to consider social justice activists and incorporate their ideas for equal distribution of ecological benefits and burdens because 1) doing so will mend the gap that has existed for so long between environmentalists and social activists and 2) doing so will help environmentalists gain more support against the real enemies who are the industries and corporations that care neither for environmental protection or human safety. Rather than work against grass-roots activists, environmentalists can empower them to become community builders and advocates for environmental protection on the local level.

The environmental justice movement also questions the fundamental way in which wealth is distributed among different demographic groups in societies. Most of the wealth in the world is concentrated in the industrialized, developed countries and within these countries the wealth is further concentrated in the richest groups of people, namely White people. It is also the richest people that have the most political power. Very few people of color have much financial or political affluence in society. Because people of color and the poor have little power to resist opposition, many corporations have taken advantage of them by building factories and plants in their neighborhoods, using them as cheap labor, and dumping dangerous wastes on their land. White environmentalists have been able to fight off pollution on their own lands, so corporations just dump toxins on the lands of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Indigenous people. It is vital for environmentalists to help fight racial discrimination and redistribute the wealth more equitably to people of color because a sustainable society could not exist if a large portion of society could not have a decent job, a healthy environment to live in, or ability to enjoy the natural environment.

Environmentalists must include social justice and economic equity when discussing environmental policy because humans will always remain a powerful cause of change in the world and it would be foolish to ignore the potential of people to help maintain the health and stability of precious ecosystems and wildlife. By empowering disadvantaged people of color and the poor, environmentalists ultimately gain more supporters. Conservation-minded environmentalists and justice-minded environmentalists can join forces to become one powerful environmental movement that advocates for a sustainable society with ecological protection, social equity, and economic equity.