by Alfred T. Palmer

Environmental racism has been coined as an expression describing any policy, practice, or regulation that negatively affects the environment of low-income people.  Everyone seems to acknowledge that the poor get the short end of the stick when it comes to negative environmental impacts, but at the same time the broad assumption is made that low-income people simply don’t care about the environment.

Now if I were to say that poor people hate the earth then you would probably cry foul and fill the comment box at the end of this post with vitriol and lingual excrement.  But if we are honest, yes, the majority of us well-to-dos operate under a low-level yet constant assumption that low-income individuals (whether rednecks, urban minorities or simply blue-collar) don’t care about issues of sustainability.  These assumptions have been built on a long tradition of alienating all brands of low-income folk with hoity-toity environmental clubs and lofty policies built on negative reinforcement.  What do I mean?

Well, what kind of self-respecting immigrant or redneck would want to join the Sierra Club? or would even be allowed.  (I am sure they would be allowed, even if it was assumed they were too poor and dumb to seek legal council, but I am making a point.)  When was the last time an environmental activist approached a farmer with a solution to or alternative to an environmentally harmful product/practice?  Seriously, it should not take a Green Peace genius to figure out why “putting food on the table” has become the battle cry of the rural working man in America when confronted with talk about environmentalism.

The bottom line has been that low-income people in the U.S. have long felt that nature has been elevated above them in importance – that the rainforest and spotted owls matter more than poor people.  Who among us would care about duel flush-toilets when we are, after all, having trouble “putting food on the table.”  And so sustainability is ultimately an issue of social justice, and most Americans, whether poor or rich, care about justice.  It is just that we take a different view of the subject.

I strongly believe that low-income, blue-collar America cares just as much for the sustainability of life on earth as snooty-white-collar America.  It’s just that their solutions are less flashy and tend to focus on family and community.  Plus, they don’t have as much time to blog about it.

It seems, after many years of difficult struggle, groups such as the Hemp Industries Association and Vote Hemp might finally be gathering the momentum to bring hemp back into the mainstream of American society.  These two organizations are teaming up this Spring to bring us Hemp History Week, May 17th-23rd.  This is not the same thing as, “Smoke a Doobie, Attention Deficit Day,” or “Bake a Ganja Brownie for your Favorite Earth Sprite Day.”

These organizations, and many others around the U.S. are serious about issues of sustainability AND economy.  Hemp is a versatile crop, adept at growing in many climates and soil types.  Hemp has a growing market in more than a dozen areas of the “green” economy that Obama and others so often stress the importance of.  These areas include the building sector, energy sector, food sector, textile sector and whatever you want to refer to fabrication and containers/plastics, etc. as.

The more the American public learns about the history of Hemp in the U.S. the more crystal clear its future will become.  For that reason alone, this event in May is an important one.  The main thrust of the awareness week will consist of local events sponsored and put on by volunteers at the grassroots level.  It is hoped that these events will garner at least 50,000 signed post cards urging President Obama and Attorney General Holder to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp.  You can click here in order to sign up as a volunteer to make sure your hometown has an event to celebrate Hemp History Week and be a part of demanding hemp be made a part of our future as well.

Sexy, it ain’t.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying that Mormon pioneers didn’t know sexy when they saw it, or didn’t have sex in mind when they built this house.  I’m sure they did.  But when it comes to sustainability my eyes have long wandered to blond bimbo prefabs and seductively experienced earthen homes.  Alas, I must confess these lurid affairs and return my gaze and my faithfulness to my own four walls and a roof.

Thus I rekindle my affair with unsexy sustainability.  A gander at NAHB’s (Nation Association of Home Builders) 2009 New American Home was what woke me to my senses.  I had gone one click too far, and my mouse had led me to a place of unsustainable sustainability (take a peek at it’s ludicrous 7,200 sq. ft. and you will know what I mean).  But, back from the brink I now realize that the unsexy remodel of pioneer homes across the U.S. must be looked at with new love and affection.

My home is brick on brick!  It has terrible air flow with damns all over the place.  The downstairs is almost completely cutoff from the upstairs.  The front door and living room face the West while the South is blocked by my neighbor’s house and a couple of tall trees.  Old wiring, and lath and plaster lurk below more recent sheetrock.  I even found a paper bag of mushrooms and reefer stashed in a lime green painted wall during some remodeling. (If you used to live here, sorry, I threw it out.)

It is not sexily sustainable, but it is a quality built home that has been sealed and updated well and affordably.  Without a major earthquake it will likely last another 80 years and provide sustainable living to whoever resides within it.  It is not sexy, but it is sturdy and practical.  And when else do people desire sturdy and practical more than in a recession?  So here’s to the remodel, the bungalow, the shotgun shack, the ranchstyle and the craftsman.  They may yet be the leading edge in sustainability.