Analyze

In 2019, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed a law identifying particle pollution (also called particulate matter, PM) as a “social disaster” (Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety 2019). It was a response to nationwide attention to particle pollution from 2017, when apocalypse-like particle pollution occurred. It is not uncommon to characterize pollution as a disaster. Pollution is often described in damage-based narratives like disasters because environmental pollution becomes visible when a certain kind of damage occurs (Nixon 2011). PM is a mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets (EPA 2023). An established method for assessing the health risks associated with PM is the utilization of government or World Health Organization (WHO) air quality indices. These indices reflect the potential harm to human health based on PM concentrations. However, due to the limitations of the available monitoring data and the assumption of a certain normality according to the air quality index, its utility is diminished for bodies that fall outside this assumed range of normality. The existing practices and knowledge in pollution control had individualized pollution by presuming certain states of normalcy and excluding others. To challenge this, the anti-PM advocates in South Korea have defined, datafied, perceived, and adjusted the toxicity of particulate matter in various ways. They refer to the air quality index given by the WHO or the government, but they also set their own standards to match their needs and ways of life. They actively measure the air quality of their nearest environment and share, compare, and archive their own data online. The fact that the severity of air pollution is differently tolerated by individuals challenges the concept of the toxicity index that presupposes a certain normalcy. Describing pollution as a disaster contributes to environmental injustice by obscuring the underlying context and complexities of pollution. With the values of care, solidarity, and connectivity, capturing different perspectives of living with pollution and listening to stories from different bodies can generate alternative knowledge challenging environmental injustice. Drawing upon the stories of different bodies and lives with pollution, we can imagine other ways of thinking about the environment and pollution that do not externalize risks nor individualize responsibility. 

Kim, Seohyung. 2023. "Beyond the Index: Stories of Otherized Bodies Crafting Resistant Narratives against Environmental Injustice in South Korea." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

1. How has CRPE adapted its strategies and approaches in response to changes in the political and social landscape, and what are the organization's priorities for the future?

2. What advice would you give to individuals or organizations interested in working on environmental and social justice issues in low-income communities and communities of color, based on CRPE's experiences?

3. How does CRPE measure the impact of its work, and what data or metrics does the organization use to track progress?

4. Can you provide examples of some of CRPE's most significant successes in addressing environmental and social justice issues, and the strategies that were employed to achieve these successes?

This organization is based upon supporting grassroots movements with the necessary legal to represent and support local activists effectively. CRPE also consciously makes an effort to represent historically underrepresented and marginalized communities.

California Green Zones | (CRPE) wrote a piece regarding CRPE and spoke highly of this organization and its efforts to support underserved communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

Kern Community Foundation, Fresno County, and King Community Activists are groups from the local area that support and collaborate with CRPE.

Mainstream agricultural farming is conducted within this area. It produces an obscene amount of pollution that is toxic to the local community, but at the same time, the industry is a significant employer for the local area.

CRPE seems to be proud that they are working within the San Joaquin Valley in one of the most polluted areas in the nation, “West of the Mississippi.” It also claims that by empowering locals with the necessary resources, they can amplify the already “robust vision for change” as well as “the willpower [of the community] to make it happen.”

They share the cases they are actively working on and provide further details and documentation of how those legal battles proceed. I feel as if the information itself is credible because of the validity of the organization's purpose and then the team of active lawyers working on each case. 

CRPE seems most proactive around legal advocacy work. They support and represent the needs of the communities they work with to help them reach their goals.

The most recent document relating to their Financial Statement is from the 2015 fiscal year. From what is detailed in the statement, the majority of their financial expenses come from grants.