Knektid.com

Refuting Peter Wenz's 'LULU Points' Zoning System

September 29, 2008

In his article ‘Just garbage’, Peter Wenz outlines a dynamic system for zoning locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) that seeks to dramatically reduce the current economic and racial bias. Wenz argues that proponents of the status quo, a system based largely on the Doctrine of Double Effect, are enabling a policy that unfairly discriminates against minorities under the guise of simple economic decision making. Furthermore, Wenz professes that “disproportionate impacts on poor people violate principles of distributive justice, and so are not morally justifiable in the first place” (107). With this basic premise in mind, the author outlines the shortcomings of current approaches while promoting his own system of “LULU points” (112).

The crux of Peter Wenz’s philosophy is based on the principle of commensuration, which attempts to balance the distribution of burdens and benefits of modern industry, technology, and consumerism.

“In the absence of countervailing considerations, the burdens of ill health associated with toxic hazards should be related to benefits derived from processes and products that create these hazards”

In further defining this position Wenz states that “other things being equal, justice requires that people’s proximity to toxic wastes be related positively to their income and wealth” (109). In reality, of course, the polar opposite is true. Toxic waste dumps, power plants, and chemical factories are overwhelming located within poor communities, while wealthy individuals are far removed from the negative health effects associated with these sites. To alter this inequality, Wenz proposes an approach that “assigns points to different types of locally undesirable land uses (LULUs) and requires that all communities earn LULU points” with wealthy communities being “required to earn more LULU points than poorer ones” (112). The author contends that this new paradigm would simultaneously reduce “environmental racism” while encouraging a reduction in the use of toxic substances in industry (113).

The fact that there exists a socioeconomic bias in the zoning of LULUs is undeniable. However, in outlining his remedy for this injustice, Peter Wenz has missed the mark by overlooking the power of simple economic disincentives. A “toxic tax” would provide the economic incentive to produce less waste just as the implementation of carbon tax systems in Europe and the Unites States provide polluters with an economic incentive to produce less Co2. Hazardous waste could be imbued with a price tag equal to the cost of treating the ill effects its close proximity creates. This option would fail to achieve the absolute commensuration that Wenz desires, but is far more realistic in a world where we’ll always be willing to pay to keep undesirable land out of our back yards.

Filed under: Perspectives on the Environment