At first glance, the environment might not seem like a topic for sociology. It’s usually studied by scientists like geologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers. However, we’ve seen how population growth affects the environment, which sounds like something sociologists would discuss. In fact, the environment is very relevant to sociology for a few reasons.

Firstly, many of our biggest environmental issues are caused by human actions. Just like we study behaviors like racism, sexism, and crime in sociology, studying how people affect the environment is also important. Secondly, environmental problems have a big impact on people’s lives, just like other social issues sociologists’ study. We can see this clearly when natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes happen. For example, in January 2010, a massive earthquake hit Haiti and killed over 250,000 people, which was about 2.5% of the country’s population. The effects of these disasters on Haiti’s economy and society will be felt for many years.

Slower changes in the environment can still have significant social effects. For instance, industrialization and population growth have led to increased pollution of our air, water, and land over time. Another major concern, climate change, though it has been gradual, poses a global threat that researchers continue to study extensively. The impacts of these environmental issues will likely persist for generations to come.

Another reason why the environment is a topic of interest in sociology is because addressing environmental problems involves making changes to economic and environmental policies. However, the success and effects of these changes depend heavily on social and political factors. In the United States, for instance, there are ongoing debates between political parties, corporate interests, and environmental groups regarding the strengthening of environmental regulations.

Moreover, many environmental problems highlight social inequalities based on factors like social class, race, and ethnicity. Similar to other issues in society, disadvantaged groups such as the poor and people of color often bear the brunt of environmental challenges. This concept will be revisited later in our discussion when we explore environmental racism.

Additionally, the efforts aimed at enhancing the environment, known as the environmental movement, represent a social movement worthy of sociological examination. Sociologists and other researchers have conducted numerous studies to understand why individuals join the environmental movement and the impacts it has on society.

Environmental Sociology

All these reasons indicate that the environment is a significant topic in sociology, and one that sociologists should understand well. Many sociologists focus on studying the environment, forming a specialized area within sociology known as environmental sociology. This field simply looks at how people interact with the natural world. According to a report by the American Sociological Association, environmental sociology “has provided important insights” into areas such as public opinions on the environment, how people’s values affect their environmental actions, and how environmental issues affect different communities and individuals unequally (Nagel et al. 2010: 13).

Environmental sociology assumes “that humans are part of the environment and that the environment and society can only be fully understood in relation to each other” (McCarthy and King 2009:1). Since humans are responsible for many environmental problems, we also have the ability and responsibility to solve them. As sociologists Leslie King and Deborah McCarthy argue, “We both strongly believe that humans have come to a turning point in terms of our destruction of ecological resources and endangerment of human health. A daily look at the major newspapers points, without fail, to worsening environmental problems…Humans created these problems, and we have the power to resolve them. Naturally, the longer we wait, the more devastating the problems will become; and the more we ignore the sociological dimensions of environmental decline the more our proposed solutions will fail.”

Environmental sociologists focus on two key aspects of the relationship between society and the environment: (a) the impact of human activities and decisions, and (b) the presence and effects of environmental inequalities and racism. Let’s now explore these two aspects further.

Human Activity & Decision Making

Environmental sociologists emphasize that human decisions and actions are the primary causes of environmental issues. Many people, acting independently, make choices and do things that harm the environment. For example, leaving lights on, setting our homes at extreme temperatures, and driving cars with low gas mileage all contribute to environmental damage. Not only individuals but also corporations, government bodies, and other organizations make decisions that harm the environment. Sometimes, these actions are deliberate, while other times they’re due to carelessness or lack of consideration for the environment. Regardless of intent, the environment suffers from these actions.

A significant example of environmental damage caused by human activity occurred during the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in April 2010. This incident began when an oil rig leased by BP exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the release of nearly 5 million barrels of oil (about 200 million gallons) into the ocean. Investigations by Congress revealed that BP’s decisions, aimed at cutting costs, increased the risk of a catastrophic well failure. For instance, they opted for inferior casing for the well, making an explosion more likely, despite warnings from their own employees and outside contractors.

Additionally, sociologists McCarthy and King (2009) highlight several other environmental disasters caused by reckless decision-making and human-induced natural disasters. One such incident occurred in Bhopal, India, in 1984, when a Union Carbide pesticide plant leaked forty tons of deadly gas. This resulted in the immediate deaths of between 3,000 and 16,000 people, and another half million suffered permanent illnesses or injuries. Union Carbide’s decision to cut corners and disregard safety standards during the construction and management of the plant contributed to the severity of the leak.

Another avoidable accident was the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster. It happened when the tanker ran aground near Alaska and spilled 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. This disaster caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals, and nearly wiped-out local fishing and seafood industries. The main reason behind this accident was that the ship’s captain was drunk and left control of the ship to an unlicensed third mate after drinking five double vodkas. Even though Exxon knew about the captain’s alcoholism, they still let him command the ship. Additionally, if the ship had a double hull (where one hull is inside another), it might not have cracked upon impact or released as much oil. However, Exxon and other oil companies persuaded Congress not to make stronger hulls mandatory.

A more recent preventable environmental catastrophe was Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. It caused significant damage after hitting the Gulf Coast, especially New Orleans. The strong winds and flooding led to the deaths of over 1,800 people and left more than 700,000 homeless. McCarthy and King (2009) argue that much of this damage was due to human decisions: “While hurricanes are typically considered ‘natural disasters,’ Katrina’s extreme consequences must be considered the result of social and political failures” (p. 4). Despite knowing for years that a major flood could breach New Orleans’ levees and cause severe damage, officials at various levels of government did nothing to reinforce or rebuild them. Furthermore, the loss of coastal land due to commercial and residential development deprived New Orleans of natural protection. In essence, the flooding after Katrina was a human-made disaster, not just a natural one.

Environmental Inequality & Racism

Another important aspect of environmental sociology focuses on environmental inequality and a related idea known as environmental racism. Environmental inequality, also referred to as environmental injustice, highlights the observation that individuals from lower-income backgrounds and racial minority groups tend to face a disproportionate burden of environmental issues. Environmental racism specifically points to the increased likelihood for people of color to encounter these environmental challenges. The term environmental justice encompasses academic research exploring environmental inequality and racism, as well as public policy endeavors and activism aimed at addressing these disparities. The section below, “Applying Social Research,” presents significant scholarly work concerning environmental racism.

As mentioned in the report by the American Sociological Association, environmental sociology focuses on how environmental issues affect people differently, especially those who are socially disadvantaged, stating “A central finding of sociology is that unequal power dynamics shape patterns of social mobility and access to social, political, and economic resources” (Nagel et al., 2010:17). This mirrors sociology’s overall focus on social inequality. The report also highlights that the poorest countries will be hit hardest by global climate change: “Many of the countries least responsible for the rise in greenhouse gases will be most likely to feel its impacts in changes in weather, sea levels, health care costs, and economic hardships” (Nagel et al. 2010:17).

Some studies indicate that individuals with lower incomes are more likely to face environmental issues. However, research suggests that this burden is even higher for people of color compared to white individuals. A review of this research suggests that low-income individuals, particularly those from non-white communities, bear a disproportionate share of exposure to unhealthy environmental conditions in the United States. Furthermore, as researchers continue to examine data on environmental exposure and health, the evidence increasingly suggests that significant environmental injustices have affected communities across the country (Evans and Kantrowitz 2002:323).

As we’ve discussed in this section, the presence of environmental inequality and racism highlights how certain groups face more environmental risks than others due to social inequalities. Understanding this is key in environmental sociology because it sheds light on how our larger societal disparities affect who is most exposed to environmental hazards.

Environmental Problems

Describing the world as in danger, environmentally, might seem like an exaggeration, but it’s true. By looking at various environmental issues, we can see just how serious and widespread the problem. Estimates suggest that each year in the United States, anywhere from 10,000 to 60,000 people pass away due to air pollution (Reiman and Leighton 2010). The problem is even more serious globally. According to the World Health Organization (2011), about 1.3 million individuals around the world lose their lives annually due to air pollution.

These deaths result from health issues caused by air pollution like heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases such as asthma. Most air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal. This problem isn’t limited to wealthy industrial nations; it’s also prevalent in developing countries like China and India, where air pollution is particularly severe. In these nations, cities with high levels of particulate matter (carbon, nitrates, sulfates, and other particles) have mortality rates 15–50 percent higher than cleaner cities. In European countries, air pollution is estimated to shorten average life expectancy by 8.6 months. The World Health Organization (2011) rightly emphasizes that air pollution “is a major environmental health problem affecting everyone in developed and developing countries alike.” Pollution, especially of various kinds, notably affects children’s health. For further details on this impact, refer to the “Children and Our Future” box below.

The burning of fossil fuels adds to global climate change, also known as global warming. This happens because certain gases get trapped in the atmosphere, causing what’s called the greenhouse effect. This leads to Earth getting warmer, and temperatures went up by almost 1°C in the last hundred years. Besides impacting the ecology of polar regions and sea levels worldwide, climate change brings a bunch of other problems. These include more diseases spread through food and water, less food due to reduced farming and droughts, more hurricanes and other extreme weather events, and the extinction of some species (Gillis and Foster 2012; Zimmer 2011). All these issues lead to more deaths globally. According to the World Health Organization in 2010, climate change causes over 140,000 extra deaths every year.

Climate change can lead to more interpersonal violence and armed conflict between people (Agnew 2012; Fisman and Miguel 2010; Kristof 2008). Historically, when there were extreme weather events like droughts or floods, violence often followed. For instance, during the unusually cold weather in medieval Europe, there were more witch-burnings because crops failed, and people blamed witches. Similarly, economic problems caused by failing crops in the southern United States led to more violence against African Americans. As global warming continues and rainfall decreases, there may be more civil wars in African countries. According to an economist at Oxford University, if there’s a drought, there’s a 50 percent higher chance that an African country will have a civil war the next year (Kristof 2008).

Considering climate change, it’s crucial to remember certain inequalities mentioned earlier (McNall 2011). Firstly, the wealthiest countries in the world contribute more to climate change than is fair. Countries like the United States, Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom make up only 15 percent of the global population but are responsible for half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Secondly, the impacts of climate change hit poorer nations much harder than wealthier ones. For instance, people in Africa are far less equipped than Americans to handle the effects of droughts, extreme weather events, and other issues caused by climate change.

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center from September 25 to October 1, 2023, 43% of U.S. adults believe that climate change is currently causing significant or considerable harm to people in the United States. An additional 28% acknowledge that it is causing some level of harm. Looking towards the future, young adults aged 18 to 29 are particularly concerned about worsening climate impacts, with 78% anticipating that harm caused by climate change in the U.S. will increase to some degree during their lifetime. Approximately a quarter of Americans (23%) anticipate needing to make significant adjustments in their daily lives due to climate change, while a larger portion (48%) expects to make minor adjustments, and 28% do not anticipate making any sacrifices at all (Pew Research Center 2023b).

There are notable disparities between Republicans and Democrats regarding their expectations of how climate change will affect their lives. Nearly half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents anticipate making no adjustments to their daily lives because of climate change. In contrast, 88% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents expect to have to make at least minor adjustments. These partisan differences are closely linked to varying perceptions of the national impacts of climate change: 86% of Democrats anticipate worsening harm from climate change in the U.S. during their lifetime, compared to only 37% of Republicans who share the same expectation (Pew Research Center 2023b).

Water quality presents a significant issue worldwide. In many poorer countries, drinking water is often unsafe due to inadequate sanitation practices, particularly concerning human waste. Similarly, industrial discharge into bodies of water like lakes, rivers, and streams in wealthier nations also contributes to this problem. The consequences of poor water quality are severe, leading to parasitic infections and diseases such as diarrhea, malaria, cholera, intestinal worms, typhoid, and hepatitis A. According to the World Health Organization, these issues result in substantial annual mortality rates: (a) approximately 2.5 million deaths from diarrhea, including 1.4 million among children; (b) around 500,000 deaths from malaria; and (c) approximately 860,000 child deaths from malnutrition. Furthermore, at least 200 million people experience one or more of these serious diseases each year due to inadequate sanitation and unsafe drinking water (Cameron et al. 2008).

Since the 1970s, nuclear power has sparked debates about its impact on the environment. Advocates argue that it offers cleaner energy compared to fossil fuels like oil and coal, without contributing to global warming. On the other hand, critics highlight concerns about the dangers of nuclear waste and the potential for catastrophic events like meltdowns, where radioactive gases could be released into the air.

One of the most severe nuclear accidents occurred at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. The core of the reactor exploded, releasing radioactive gases that spread across Europe. The amount of radiation released was much higher than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II. While around sixty people, including Chernobyl workers and nearby residents, died soon after the disaster, the long-term health effects have been more challenging to measure. Scientists have spent the last twenty-five years studying the health impacts of the Chernobyl incident. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), it’s estimated that around 27,000 additional cancer-related deaths worldwide will eventually be linked to the Chernobyl disaster (Gronlund 2011).

In March 1979, there was nearly a major nuclear disaster in the United States at the Three Mile Island plant in central Pennsylvania. Due to a combination of technological malfunctions and human errors, the reactor core almost overheated to dangerous levels. For several days, the nation was on edge as officials worked to control the situation. Around 140,000 people living within twenty miles of the plant had to evacuate as a precaution. This incident significantly reduced support for nuclear power in the U.S., leading to a sharp decline in the construction of new nuclear plants over the next twenty years (Fischer 1997).

In March 2011, Japan experienced its worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. An earthquake and tsunami severely damaged a nuclear plant in the Fukushima region, located 155 miles north of Tokyo. Over 80,000 residents had to leave their homes due to the release of radioactive gases and water. Even a year later, radiation levels remained dangerously high in the evacuated area. A report on the anniversary of the disaster highlighted the eerie desolation: “What’s most striking about Japan’s nuclear exclusion zone is what you don’t see. There are no people, few cars, no sign of life, aside from the occasional livestock wandering empty roads. Areas once home to 80,000 people are now ghost towns, frozen in time. Homes ravaged from the powerful earthquake that shook this region nearly a year ago remain virtually untouched. Collapsed roofs still block narrow streets. Cracked roads make for a bumpy ride” (Fujita 2012). Fully decommissioning the damaged reactors at Fukushima will require at least thirty years. The news report stated, “This nuclear wasteland may not be livable for decades” (Fujita 2012).

In February 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a study suggesting that the likelihood of nuclear power accidents in the United States was very low. According to the study, if an accident were to happen, plant operators would have enough time to cool down reactor cores and prevent or minimize the release of radiation (DiSavino 2012). However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) holds a different view. They are worried about the risk, especially because some U.S. reactors have a similar design to the ones at Fukushima, which experienced a severe accident following an earthquake. The UCS (2011) argues: “If [these reactors] were confronted with a similar challenge, it would be foolish to assume the outcome would not also be similar.” Moreover, the UCS points out that earthquakes could trigger fires at reactors, and many U.S. plants fail to meet fire protection standards. A news report also highlighted the similarities between U.S. nuclear plants and Fukushima, concluding that they “share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima” (Zeller 2011).

Critics of nuclear power argue that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) doesn’t oversee the nuclear industry strictly enough. A 2011 investigation by the Associated Press (AP) supported this criticism (Donn 2011). The AP discovered that the NRC has been “working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards or simply failing to enforce them.” The report continued, “Time after time, officials at the [NRC] have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril.” When some valves at nuclear plants leaked, the NRC changed its rules to allow more leakage. Similarly, when cracks in steam generator tubes led to radiation leaks, the standards for tubing strength were lowered. Additionally, when reactors started to exceed temperature limits, the NRC nearly doubled the allowed temperatures. The investigation uncovered “thousands” of issues in aging reactors that the NRC had overlooked, suggesting a close relationship between the NRC and the nuclear industry.

A former NRC engineer interviewed by the AP agreed that the agency often sided with the nuclear industry by claiming existing regulations were too strict. ” That’s what they say for everything, whether that’s the case or not,” the engineer remarked. ” They say, ‘We have all this built-in conservatism.'”

Air and water pollution pose environmental risks, as mentioned earlier, but so does contamination of the soil from hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are materials or byproducts that can be harmful if not handled properly. If they are disposed of incorrectly, they can seep into the soil or bodies of water and eventually affect humans, animals, and plants.

There are two main sources of hazardous waste: (1) everyday products like pesticides, cleaning fluids, certain paints, batteries, and electronics, and (2) waste from industrial processes like solvents and wastewater. This waste can enter the environment when homeowners and consumers are careless, as well as when large manufacturing companies are negligent. It can lead to birth defects, chronic illnesses, and even death.

Sometimes, companies dump so much hazardous waste in one area that they create hazardous waste sites. These sites are pieces of land and water contaminated by dangerous chemicals dumped by factories and other industries. One well-known hazardous waste site in the United States is Love Canal, located near Niagara Falls, New York. In the 1940s and 1950s, a chemical company dumped 20,000 tons of toxic chemicals into the canal, filled it with dirt, and sold it for development to the local school board. Later, a school and over eight hundred homes, many for low-income families, were built nearby. The chemicals eventually seeped into the groundwater, yards, and basements of these homes, reportedly causing birth defects and other health problems.

The Superfund program, started around thirty years ago by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), keeps an eye on and cleans up places across the country where hazardous waste is found. Over the years, it has found and started fixing up over 1,300 of these spots. And get this, around 11 million folks live within just a mile of one of these spots.

The world’s oceans face serious threats that could harm millions of people worldwide, according to a report (ScienceDaily 2010). One major issue is overfishing, which has led to a significant decrease in the number of certain ocean animals. This decline not only affects what fish we see in restaurants or supermarkets but also disrupts the ocean food chain (Weise 2011). With fewer smaller ocean animals available, larger animals that depend on them for food are struggling to survive. As a result, the entire ocean ecosystem is at risk of serious consequences due to this chain reaction.

One example of this chain reaction can be seen with killer whales and sea otters in the ocean off the coast of western Alaska (Weise 2011). Killer whales have a varied diet, including sea lions and harbor seals. However, due to human overfishing of the prey fish species that sea lions and harbor seals feed on, their population has decreased in western Alaska and other areas. Consequently, killer whales have turned to eating more sea otters, leading to a drastic 90 percent decline in the sea otter population in western Alaska. Since sea otters feed on sea urchins, their decline has resulted in an increase in the sea urchin population. As sea urchins consume kelp beds, the disappearance of kelp beds in the area has occurred, which serves as a vital food source for other ocean creatures (Estes et al, 2011).

Another instance of the ocean chain reaction involves whales. About 1,000 years ago, people started hunting whales for various reasons, and this became more widespread during the 18th century, leading to a significant decrease in whale populations, especially right whales. In the southern oceans, whale poop is crucial because it provides essential nutrients for tiny creatures and plankton. Over time, as the number of whales in these oceans has decreased, these creatures and plankton, which play a vital role in the ocean’s ecosystem, have faced significant declines (Weise 2011).

Besides overfishing, bycatch, which refers to the unintentional capture and harm of marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds while fishing for other species, also threatens many ocean creatures. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2012), bycatch “can have significant social, environmental, and economic impacts.” It not only consumes valuable time and resources within the fishing industry but also jeopardizes various marine species and disrupts the delicate balance of the ocean ecosystem.

A common example of bycatch that many Americans are familiar with is when dolphins are accidentally caught and killed in large fishing nets used to catch tuna. However, a less well-known example involves sea turtles. Over the past few decades, the number of sea turtles has decreased dramatically, and six out of the seven species now at risk of extinction. The main reason for this decline is bycatch from shrimp trawl nets and other fishing methods. Since 1990, millions of sea turtles have been killed due to bycatch (Viegas 2010).

Climate change contributes to additional issues affecting the oceans. Coral reefs, which are renowned for their vibrant colors and stunning beauty, play crucial roles in marine ecosystems. They serve as vital sources of nutrients for various marine life and provide a significant protein source for approximately 500 million individuals worldwide. Additionally, coral reefs aid in safeguarding coastlines against natural calamities like tsunamis, while also attracting considerable tourism revenue amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Despite their numerous benefits, coral reefs have long faced threats from overfishing, tourism, coastal development, and other factors. Recent research indicates that climate change is also negatively impacting coral reefs (Rudolf 2011). Global warming associated with climate change is causing coral reefs worldwide to become overheated. This overheating leads to the expulsion of algae the reefs rely on for food and their vibrant colors. Consequently, the reefs become pale and eventually die, exacerbating the ocean’s existing food chain issues. Scientists estimate that three-quarters of the world’s reefs are in danger due to global warming, with one-fifth of them already destroyed. Additionally, they predict that almost all reefs will be at risk by the year 2050.

Global warming will still be a big issue, and so will increasing acidity, which is another problem caused by climate change. When carbon dioxide goes into the air, a lot of it ends up in the ocean. This makes the ocean less basic and more acidic. The increasing acidity harms coral reefs and is also dangerous for animals we eat like clams, lobsters, and mussels.

Another issue related to climate change and oceans is the rising sea levels (Daley 2011). Due to global warming, the polar ice caps are melting, leading to an increase in sea levels. This results in more severe storm surges during bad weather. Even without storms, coastal areas are losing land to the rising oceans. Despite these challenges, many coastal communities haven’t built enough barriers to reduce the damage from flooding.

This module has talked about food shortages before as a problem for the population. But besides that, food can also be dangerous for the environment. To put it simply, sometimes food isn’t safe to eat. For example, in 2011, there was an outbreak in Europe where at least 31 people died and over 3,000 got very sick from a rare type of E. coli, which is a harmful bacterium. The cause was contaminated bean sprouts, as reported by CNN. Similarly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around 325,000 Americans end up in the hospital every year because they get sick from eating contaminated food, and sadly, about 5,000 Americans die annually from these illnesses (Kristof 2011).

The harmful bacteria usually come from mishandling and other actions involved in raising animals and preparing food. It’s not just that, though. Livestock are regularly given antibiotics to keep them well even though they often live in crowded and dirty spaces. Unfortunately, using antibiotics so widely lets bacteria become resistant to them. When people get sick from these bacteria, antibiotics don’t help them get better (Kristof 2012).

A journalist highlighted a clear issue: “We would never think of trying to keep our children healthy by adding antibiotics to school water fountains, because we know this would breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It’s unconscionable that Big Ag [Big Agriculture] does something similar for livestock” (Kristof, 2011, p. WK10). A U.S. Congressman who studies tiny organisms agrees with this: “These statistics tell the tale of an industry that is rampantly misusing antibiotics in an attempt to cover up filthy, unsanitary living conditions among animals. As they feed antibiotics to animals to keep them healthy, they are making our families sicker by spreading these deadly strains of bacteria.”