The Environmental Movement and White Supremacy

One of the most fundamental problems of Environmental Ethics is the question of whom the environment belongs to. How we choose to answer it carries a great deal of baggage. It reflects our society as a whole, articulating in very concrete terms who and what we value. Its answer grows out of history, guided by the thoughts and social developments that gave rise to it being asked in the first place. In this regard it’s an aspirational question, who ought this world in its totality serve, and who should be allowed to make use of its resources for their wealth, recreation, and well-being.

Almost invariably, the answer given has simply been, “Me!” with me taken to mean the group in power at the time. In our history the me has meant the wealthy, the white, and the male. The environmental movement grew out of this answer and its work has often reflected it.

An early victory for the parks movement came with the completion of the Bronx River Parkway, a turn of the century effort to clean the nearby river and beautify the area surrounding New York City at the time (the city has since incorporated the parkway). But of course in the eyes of its planners cleaning and beautifying required more than just the removal of material pollution, it required the removal of ‘human pollution’. The development was planned to evict as many African American and Italian families as possible in an effort preserve the environment explicitly for the use of what at the time was explicitly called the “master race” that is people of white northern European descent.

Later parks would follow similar development. National parks, often called America’s best idea, would be built on land acquired through the expulsion and genocide of Native Americans. Yellowstone, perhaps the most famous park in the world, is made up of land of tremendous cultural significance to over 27 different indigenous nations. This pattern of displacement and theft has continued into the present day. At the 2003 world parks congress the indigenous delegations closing statement read in part, “First we were dispossessed in the name of kings and emperors, later in the name of State development and now in the name of conservation.” These issues will only be exacerbated as the economic importance of ecotourism increases for local economies and large corporations opening ski resorts and hunting preserves expand and “conserve” indigenous people’s land.

Of course none of this is to say that environmentalism or national parks or preserves or any other form of wild preservation is inherently wrong. It is simply to say that by understanding and denouncing the flawed history of our movement we are able to ameliorate the mistakes of the past, and in recent years through the efforts of tireless poc environmentalists great strides have been made towards that end. Efforts like the land back movement have sought to create indigenous stewardship and, in someplace, sovereignty over the land, allowing them to protect and honor their land and cultural heritage according to their own history.



Outdoor clubs in BIPOC communities have sought to address disparities in environmental recreation. To the present day, largely because of the history discussed above non-white people make up less than 20% of national park visitors. By welcoming marginalized groups into the full enjoyment of the outdoors that is the right of all human beings a greater movement is being built that can adequately face the deep pockets of the anti-environmental lobby.



Likewise, across the world today indigenous people are at the forefront of developing economies that supply them with wealth and livelihood through the preservation of ecosystems through ecotourism centered around local communities rather than multinational corporations. Through these practices Costa Rica has seen significant economic growth over the past two decades while attaining carbon neutrality. An achievement that would have seemed inconceivable only a quarter of a century ago.

Through these efforts and countless others we can have some hope that out of the thorny web of barbaric history a seed of a better world is emerging. White supremacy is pervasive and systemic and despite our best efforts it likely will not be destroyed in a generation, but its eradication is possible. Every small victory towards an equitable movement and future is one over the fetters of this history and a step towards a future worthy of the human species as a whole.

Throughout this course we have discussed expanded notions of the environment to include the issues of human society as a whole. Environmental issues intersect with the struggles of all the oppressed people of the world. Those who bear the greatest brunt of the climate catastrophe we’re facing will largely not be white. They’ll be black or brown or indigenous, living in places we far too often disregard in our conversation of hydrogen fuel cells and carbon marketplaces. By addressing the fundamental question of environmentalism we can create a movement and thereby a world that goes far beyond those practical considerations. We can create a world where the earth’s stewardship is our chief concern and through its preservation we can support the flourishing of our people. All environmentalists fight for a sustainable world but we must ask ourselves what does this future sustainable world look like, and in my opinion, if it is simply a return to the world we have known for the past 700 years ensnared by white supremacy sans pollution then we shall have failed.