Social Class in Environmental Politics

After reading Ms. Silverman's book "Stopping the Plant," it became clear to me that there was in fact a general separation in social class between those who supported the plant and those who opposed it- and this divide still exists today. Silverman includes a quote from Phillip Shabecoff, in which he describes the average members of a national environmental organization as ""mostly white, well-educated, relatively affluent middle-class professionals."" (Silverman, 70) This is certainly not the description of someone who would be lobbying for the construction of a plant on the premise it would bring them a job.

Alternatively, the main supporters of the St. Lawrence Cement Plant project seemed to fit a different description. Silverman reports thats the average household income in the City of Hudson was $24,000 as of 2000, whereas the state average at the time was nearly twice that at $43,000. (Silverman, 51) In a region with it's share of lower-class workers, the advertised concept of a well-paying job at the plant was attractive. Silverman relates the words of a plant worker in a 2002 SLC film, in which they claim ""Everyone that worked in a cement plant could buy a home. Everyone."" (Silverman, 49) Another worker goes on to state "one year's wage at the plant could buy three brand-new Chryslers." (Silverman, 49) To someone making only $24,000 a year, this would appear to be a huge quality of life increase. Yet despite all this, supporters of the plant were still seen as "less intelligent, less educated, or having a "bizarre nostalgia" for the days of industry." (Silverman, 21).

I do find this polarization worrisome, as it persists today in new environmental disputes. One of the more interesting of these modern debates focuses on the proposed wind power project off Cape Cod. While this issue is does not involve a dispute between the lower-working class and the upper-middle class, an economic polarization still exists. This time it is between the stereotypical environmentalist (see description in first paragraph) who believes that a switch to clean power is necessary and the rich elite with previously undisturbed views of the water and concerns that- besides ruining their view of the horizon- the blades of the windmills could harm migratory birds and other such ecosystems. As with SLC, both sides offer biased 'scientific reasoning' and to why their opinions are more viable, however in the end it still boils down to the conflicting beliefs and emotions of two different socio-economic groups of people. It almost seems that money, advertising, and political lobbying power matter more than the true science behind the issues...