APRIL 1996 · VOLUME 17 · NUMBER 4

---

I N T E R V I E W

---

Multinational Monitor: Why did you form the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste?

Lois Gibbs: I formed CCHW because I discovered during the struggle at Love Canal that there was no organization that was established for the purpose of helping local, average, grassroots people, moms and dads, with the issues of environmental threats. When I worked at Love Canal, I kept trying to find somebody who could answer questions like, "What do you do when there is a dump site across the street from you?" or "How do you find out what these chemicals mean and what they will do to your body?" CCHW has been established primarily to focus on those needs of grassroots people.

MM: What do you mean when you call CCHW an environmental justice center?

Gibbs: Plenty of people in this country who are faced with environmental threats are low-income people, people of color or blue collar workers -- they are people who have been targeted by corporations, and to a lesser extent by our own government, for being poisoned.

These people's health and well-being is really more than an environmental issue. It is a justice issue. Very wealthy people for the most part do not have waste facilities located in their communities, and are not faced with these threats. Our campaigns really come down to justice, not specific environmental issues -- the right to clean air, a clean environment, a safe place to work, play and live.

MM: How do you distinguish the environmental justice approach from "environmentalism?"

Gibbs: Environmental justice is really about people and communities. It is about children and grandchildren.

Most of the environmental groups work only on natural resources -- air, water and soil -- without looking at the bigger picture of the people. In most environmentally threatened communities, it is not just a matter of an environmental threat; they are also faced with issues of education, of how to build an economically sound community.

Our approach then is very different in that we look at the whole community, and focus on people; that is in contrast to the environmental groups' focus on natural wildlife and habitat, not that those are not important.

MM: Are your strategies different as well?

Gibbs: I think one of the biggest differences is the goal. For the most part, environmental groups look at regulation as the answer to the problem. They look at how much can be discharged from a smokestack, how much can be discharged into our water supply, how much can be discharged into our air, before harm is done.

The environmental justice movement's goal is not on a control system like the traditional, mainstream groups. We are more focused on prevention. We ask, "Why do we have to have the smokestack in the first place? Why are we discharging into the air?" There are no safe levels for our children. We have to come up with other ways to manufacture products, we have to come up with other ways to deal with our environment that prevents hazardous exposures and releases altogether.

Based on those goals, the strategies are very different. Our strategies are not to go and change or introduce a piece of legislation. Our primary efforts are directed to closing down this incinerator, or putting together a recycling program in our city that takes care of the waste stream without jeopardizing the environment and public health.

MM: The main criticism of the environmental justice approach is the notion that it is a just a NIMBY (not in my backyard) movement, that people are only concerned about eliminating the hazards that affect them, and are unconcerned about who eventually will end up accepting the hazard. How do you respond to this criticism?

Gibbs: At one time, I think that was true. If you go back to the early 1980s, people really were concerned about their backyard and their backyard alone. But the movement has matured, and grown; people have met the people from the other backyards in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and the criticism is no longer true.

People are not saying, "Take it out of my backyard, and I don't care where you put it." In fact, people worked very hard under the Superfund legislation, which is meant to clean up the worst sites in this country, to include a regulation that says you cannot move Superfund waste from one site to another. And that was accomplished and included because of the grassroots effort.

People are not saying, "Don't put it in my backyard, put it somewhere else." People are saying, "Don't manufacture it, don't dispose of it this way, and use reduction in the manufacturing process so that we don't generate the waste in the first place." They really do see the bigger picture.

MM: The environmental justice movement has adopted a more aggressive posture than the mainstream environmental groups. Is it correct to say that you are less willing to talk to the other side, to the polluting corporations?

Gibbs: It is not that we are less interested in talking to the other side. It is really that the other side doesn't come to the table to play fairly. The other side instead works behind the scenes to sabotage what community groups are doing.

The mainstream environmental groups can meet with the other side, but that is generally to compromise away issues and goals that grassroots groups are looking at.

Let me give you an example. One of the things we are doing now is looking at dioxin. We are asking the paper and pulp facilities -- the paper companies -- to not use chlorine in their bleaching process, to use a closed-loop system and to use hydrogen peroxide. It is a process that can be changed over without job loss, without closing down mills and so forth. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) met with Time Warner and several of the major corporations that have financial ties to the paper industry and cut a deal that said it was okay for them to use chlorine dioxide -- which is less toxic than straight chlorine but is a form of chlorine nonetheless. EDF cut that deal knowing there are affordable alternatives, that Time Warner and the paper companies could still make their product and still have major corporate growth and major corporate profits, without poisoning people.

MM: But hasn't EDF achieved some successes through negotiation with corporations, such as McDonald's?

Gibbs: EDF does not deserve any credit for McDonald's getting rid of styrofoam sandwich packaging. That entire effort was done by the grassroots groups, which launched a campaign in 1987 and pushed McDonald's to the point where McDonald's had to do something. McDonald's as a corporation does not want consumers to know that a grassroots campaign impacted company policy. So they cut a deal with EDF which gave credit to EDF for persuading them on the basis of their argument alone.

But the truth is, it was not EDF that won that fight, it was the local people in communities across the United States.

The grassroots groups and CCHW in particular were especially angry with EDF because we wrote letters to all of the mainstream groups, saying that McDonald's is likely to come and try to negotiate with you. We had been trying to get McDonald's to sit down with the grassroots leaders. We were willing to sit talk about it, but they were not. EDF was the only environmental group which violated that strategy, and went ahead and met with McDonald's, violating people's trust and their working relationship with people on the grassroots level.

MM: As a general matter, how does race fit into the environmental justice equation?

Gibbs: The issue of race and income fit very tightly into environmental justice. As conscious policy, the dirtiest industries, the things that are going to pollute and poison the environment and the public are, more often than not, put in communities of color, indigenous people communities or poor communities -- places some government documents call "communities that are least likely to resist."

There are two documents that talk about this, one by Cerrell and Associates, contracted with the Solid Waste Division of the state of California, and another one by a consulting firm called Epley, which was contracted in North Carolina to site a low-level radioactive waste facility. In both of these cases, they said they were going to site the facilities where people were least likely to resist, not where there is the best environment for the facilities, where there is no nearby water table, or where the soil structure is a certain pattern that would reduce the risk of such a facility. Instead, it was in a community where people don't have the resources to fight back, where people are already struggling with so many survival issues each and every day.

The siting is deliberate and intentional. I would say the majority of waste facilities in this country are located in low-income communities, communities of color, or blue-collar communities.

MM: Why is CCHW now turning its attention to dioxin?

Gibbs: There are two things motivating us. One, it is a campaign that can broaden our network of people, because everybody is affected by dioxin poisoning across the country, every man, woman and child in this country. Second, most of the facilities that we currently work on have a dioxin component to it.

MM: What is the Campaign's agenda?

Gibbs: We are asking to Stop Dioxin Exposure. We are looking at where dioxin sources are across the country, and what it is that we can do locally to stop dioxin exposure.

Dioxin exposure is easy to resolve. We can stop using chlorine in products like paper; we can close solid waste incinerators and limit waste and switch to other methods of waste disposal; we can stop the manufacturing of plastics from chlorine; and we can stop burning non-human tissue waste in medical incinerators, and switch to alternative disinfection methods such as microwaving. So it is something that is very winnable; because there are alternatives, we don't have to go live in a cave somewhere with candlelight and eat over an open fire.

MM: So it is not the case that dioxin exposure is just one of the prices we pay for receiving the benefits of industrial society?

Gibbs: Absolutely not. In fact, we can have all the same products, including white paper and plastics, without dioxin exposures and releases. The problem is that there is not the political will, and there are not economic incentives for the corporations to change. And without either one of those, corporations are not going to change their processes, they are not going to stop making particular products.

MM: Is the Campaign calling for the complete elimination of dioxin or just a reduction?

Gibbs: A complete elimination of dioxin exposure.

At this point, we are not asking for a ban on chlorine, which is really where dioxin comes from -- it is combustion and chlorine. We need chlorine for some other areas, like pharmaceuticals and drinking water supplies. So until we have more alternatives, we are starting with the biggest sources of dioxin exposure, and will look to a phase out of chlorine over time.

MM: On whom is the Campaign focused?

Gibbs: It is focused on the producers of dioxin at the local level. It is not focused nationally as it relates to some type of regulation or legislation. We are asking people to go out and be dioxin detectives, to identify dioxin sources in their communities -- hospital medical waste incinerators, community solid waste incinerators and so on. Once we find those sources, then we can work with the corporations, if they are willing, or outside of the corporate circle if they are not, to try and shut down those dioxin sources.

MM: Why focus on production rather than consumption?

Gibbs: That is the other piece. We are focusing on consumption as well. We are asking college campuses, state houses and other institutions to adopt procurement policies which say they will only buy paper that has not been rebleached with chlorine or is totally chlorine free. (The rebleach part applies to recycled paper that already has chlorine in it, but does not need to be rebleached with chlorine.)

We are also looking at other alternatives for products. We are asking people to go to the store, and look at items like their shampoo bottle. If it has a "V" in it or a number "3" (both of which symbolize that the bottle is made of polyvinyl chloride), we are asking them to not buy that product. Instead, they should call the corporation that makes the product -- there is usually an 800 number on the bottle -- and tell them why they did not buy that bottle of shampoo, why they bought a different product.

So we are working on the marketplace incentives and the local dioxin sources at the same time.

MM: Are there any companies that stand out as the main targets of the campaign?

Gibbs: Dow and Occidental Petroleum are the biggest manufacturers of chlorine-based products that later get incinerated. Those companies stand out as a chlorine producer and a manufacturer of plastics with chlorine in them.

We haven't targeted the companies yet. We are still choosing targets, based in part on which company we think we can most successfully pressure.

MM: Have you had any kind of response to the Campaign from dioxin-producing companies?

Gibbs: We have had a fairly strong response from the Chlorine Chemical Council and the Chemical Manufacturers Association and other trade associations. Pretty much that response has been at the local level, because our activities have been local.

We had a young woman in Midway, Texas who attempted to pass a local high school Parent-Teachers Association (PTA) resolution calling for the elimination of dioxin exposures. DuPont showed up and said that the PTA had no business talking about dioxin, that the PTA's business is educating students and not talking about environmental pollutants. Needless to say, the people -- the moms and dads at that PTA meeting -- became pretty outraged that someone would think they have such a narrow view of their responsibilities, and they passed the resolution.

The woman and the other Midway parents went to the state PTA level, to pass a dioxin resolution within the Texas state PTA. When that happened, all heck broke loose with the Texas Chemical Council and the Texas Manufacturing Association, and Dow Chemical and Occidental, who sent reams and reams of data to PTA leaders all across the state. These PTA leaders had no clue why all this stuff was coming.

The big companies pressured the local leader to sit down and have a meeting with them. She refused. Then they called her state senator, who pressured her to meet with the corporate guys. She finally agreed to do it, so there was this meeting with six of these big corporate giants and her, trying to compromise on this PTA resolution.

The other thing industry did was buy two exhibit spaces at the PTA convention. It was the first time the convention had ever had a Chemical Manufacturers exhibit space; usually the exhibits are devoted to school educational materials and stuff like that.

All in all, 1,400 delegates came to the convention, and the dioxin resolution was passed by 72 votes. But it was a real tough fight.

The woman who organized the resolution was frightened to death that all these people were faxing things and banging on her door and demanding to meet with her. It reached the point where the Texas PTA appointed a bodyguard for her prior to the convention.

The response has been pretty heavy handed at the local level, where we are working. If that is the response to a PTA resolution, I can't imagine what would happen if we ever tried to pass a state law, or a federal law.

MM: Isn't Dow now considered to be one of the more environmentally sensitive companies?

Gibbs: You would think they would be more open and responsive.

Dow has a terrific public relations department, but from what I understand from Greenpeace activists, Dow already has alternatives available for the products they manufacture which have chlorine that later turns into dioxin. But they are not using them, because there is not the political will to make them use it.

If Dow were such a great corporate citizen, they would be the first one out the door with the alternative chemicals and the alternative products, and they could put commercials on -- honest commercials -- saying, "We were the first ones to say dioxin is a problem and we are dealing with it, because we had this bad experience with Agent Orange and the Vietnam Vets." But I don't see that happening.

MM: Who are the participants in the Campaign?

Gibbs: The participants are grassroots leaders and environmental groups across the country at one level. Six hundred of those folks came together in Louisiana in March, to figure out what the strategies are and how to go about doing the struggle.

The other people who are beginning to join the Campaign -- because it is going to be a broad-based campaign -- include: the Vietnam Vets of America; the Endometriosis Society, because endometriosis, which is a uterine disease, is directly connected to dioxin; the breast cancer groups across the country; the paperworkers, because they are frontline dioxin exposed; the lobster fisherpeople; the Council of Churches; and the American Association of Retired People. So the coalition is very broad based. In different regions, it is broader than in other regions.

Essentially it is being nurtured and pushed by grassroots environmental groups across the country, who are introducing, educating and holding meetings to bring together this coalition, and to figure out what do we do in states across the country.