A Lesson on Why Equality Is not Equity

• Author: Manuel Pastor
• Position: Director, Equity Research Institute University of Southern California
• Pages: 39-39

MAY/JUNE 2021 | 39

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2021.

Copyright © 2021, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Sidebar

SI DE BAR

A Lesson on Why Equality Is not Equity

COVID-19 was initially seen

as an equal opportunity

problem — with a danger-

ous virus spreading, all of us were

at risk. But we weren’t really: those

engaged in low-wage essential work,

living in overcrowded housing, and

already suffering from inadequate

health care were most vulnerable.

The ethnic disparities in case and

death rates that emerged in the

United States should have been no

surprise; they stem from a preexist-

ing system of racialized costs and



When we got around to devel-

oping vaccines, the equality-equity

distinction became clear. In most

states, everyone in an age bracket or

occupational category had an equal

shot at a shot — provided they had a

-

ible employment, and a car to make

their way to a mega-site. Those on

the wrong side of the digital divide,

of employment quality, and of transit

independence were left behind. The

result of this inequity was racial gaps

in vaccination rates.

So I’m in agreement when any-

one makes the point that systems

can have unintended discriminatory

impacts. But let’s go one step fur-

ther: not anticipating those impacts

and correcting for them — which

we could have easily done for both

the virus and vaccines — is inten-

tional.

So how do we recognize this and

do better in the broader environ-

mental realm?

Consider the debates about cap-

and-trade systems as a way to curtail

greenhouse gases. Environmental

justice proponents worry that trad-

ing — in which a company decides

to keep polluting and pay another

company to reduce instead — can

result in uneven local reductions in

associated co-pollutants. Market

proponents dismiss these concerns,

since it is not the intention of the

system to be racially discriminatory





inherently unequal — trading means

having pollution loads decrease more

in some places than others. The only

question is who gets the short end

of cap-and-trade stick — and since

there is some risk that such a system

could worsen pollution levels in dis-

advantaged communities, how hard

would it be to declare some over-

burdened areas “no-trade zones” or

create a premium for reductions that

generate the most pay-off on the co-

pollutant side?

You can make a decision not to

consider those issues — but that’s a

decision. So what do we need to do

to center and not sideline equity?

One key step is to take into ac-

count time. Most equity analysts

work statically — measuring at a

particular moment who gains and

who loses from a particular policy.

But centering equity means cor-

recting for the errors of the past,

creating full participation in deci-

sions today, and safeguarding against

unequal outcomes going forward.

In environmental policy, that

means prioritizing relief for neigh-

borhoods that have long suffered

the most and creating new employ-

ment opportunities for those com-

munities. California has tried to get

part of this right by insisting that a

healthy share of the revenues cre-

ated by cap-and-trade go to disad-



a tool called CalEnvironScreen.

It means repairing informational

inequalities that limit the full partici-

pation of disadvantaged groups in

regulatory processes, including fund-

ing community-based, participatory

research and accessible data like

that provided by CalEnviroScreen. It

also means developing new methods

of local engagement that move us



dialogues.

And it also involves stressing

precaution so that “unintended”

consequences become, as much as

possible, anticipated outcomes that

we seek to consciously achieve or

avoid. That requires understanding

how environmental policy interacts

with all other existing systems of

exclusion and inclusion — a hard job

but worthwhile.

In this last year, we saw that sys-

tems that are supposed to secure

the common good — like public

health and community safety — can

-

cial inequalities. Environmental poli-

cymakers have a chance to break

that mold, showing how putting



for everyone.

“I’m in agreement on the point

that systems can have unintended

discriminatory impacts. But let’s go

one step further: not anticipating

those impacts and correcting for

them — which we could have

easily done for both the virus and

vaccines — is intentional.”

Manuel Pastor

Director, Equity Research Institute

University of Southern California