In the United States, there are extreme disparities between who consumes goods and who is exposed to the pollution caused by the consumption of these goods. Air pollution caused by the consumption of “goods and “services” and their effects on the populations who are consuming and polluting are examined in a 2019  study led by University of Washington and University of Minnesota (Tessum et al, 2019). The study finds that Blacks and Hispanics in the United States disproportionately bear a “pollution burden” compared to non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. (Tessum et al, 2019). Fine particulate-matter pollution (PM2.5) may have decreased over the past two decades, but the inequality in who is exposed to that pollution remains.  

In the United States, communities of color are often situated in closer proximity to hazardous waste sites and power plants. Exposure to PM2.5 increases risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as premature death. Research has long shown that the highest determinant of whether a person will experience the burden of pollution is race, and the 2019 study showed that this is not due to the consumption habits of the affected minority groups. 

This study of racially disparate impacts of pollution builds off of a history of studies that aimed to quantify the burden of pollution of marginalized groups. Dating back to 1986, a nationally representative sample found that Black Americans were 1.54 times more likely to live in proximity to a pollution source than non-Blacks (Mikati et al, 2018, pg.480). In 2010, it was found that mean residential ambient nitrogen dioxide concentrations were 37% higher for non-Whites than Whites, compared to 7% for those living below the poverty line compared to above the poverty line (Mikati et al, 2018, pg. 480). While living in poverty correlates with living conditions that are unfavorable, Black Americans experience significantly more hazardous conditions in their home environments than those living below the poverty line, even after education and income are accounted for. The study also looked at the pollution-inequality metric, analyzing the disparity between the pollution that is generated by non-Hispanic whites and the lesser pollution to which they are exposed.

What derives this disparity is that non-Hispanic whites in the United States consume goods at higher rates than people of color, yet these goods are not being created in their own communities. Non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. are responsible for more pollution than any other demographic group. Goods consumed by non-Hispanic whites are often produced far away from the communities in which they reside. The research team looked at what people in different demographic populations were spending money on (like groceries and gas) and the pollution generated by those activities, and then did a map overlay of the racial-ethnic groups in the locations in highly polluted areas. Non-hispanic whites experience 17% less pollution than they are responsible for while on average, black Americans experience about 56 percent more pollution than they are responsible for through their consumption of goods and services. For Hispanics, it is slightly higher: 63 percent (Tessum et al, 2019). 

Environmental racism is linked to an intentional and systematic attack on communities of color in their neighborhoods. It is no accident that power plants and hazardous waste sites are situated where they are. “Unlike natural events that contribute to ambient PM, such as wildfire, the sitting of  facility is the result of a decision-making process. Disparities in siting may indicate underlying disparities in the power to influence that process,” (Mikati et al, 2018, pg 480). It is often argued that demographics of the neighborhoods surrounding noxious facilities changed after the siting of such facilities, suggesting that racial discrimination isn’t the motive behind communities of color being more likely to experience pollution. However, a 2015 study was published that strongly proved that neighborhood transitions occurred before the siting of most facilities, showing that these facility sitings were actually attracted to people of color and low-income communities (Mohai, 2015). 

What all of this research shows is that there are significant disparities in who is exposed to pollution, who is responsible for that pollution, and evidence that this was no accident. For too long issues of environmental injustice have been framed as unfortunate coincidences with no real accountability on the part of the polluters. An important distinction to make in understanding why PM pollution matters as an environmental justice issue is that it doesn’t affect every person in the U.S. in the same way. Environmental injustice refers to deliberate violence against those without power, but environmental racism encapsulates a history of this violence against specifically non-White communities in America who have disproportionately felt the burden of pollution in their homes.