Presentation short abstract

This paper examines how and why lay peoples’ experience has been incommensurate with U.S. air pollution governance. I detail how grassroots activists resist and challenge the state, showcasing how dominant, technical solutions channel attention and resources into efforts that do not alleviate harm.

Presentation long abstract

Despite technical advances in air pollution monitors, their prevalence, and thirty-five years of U.S. environmental justice (EJ) scholarship and advocacy, communities of color continue to bear the brunt of air pollution and its consequences. In Detroit, Michigan, residents have been propelled into EJ activism, asserting that their health problems are linked to air pollution from the fifty-two industrial facilities that surround their community. Since the early 2000s, they have established working relationships with state bureaucrats and academic experts, culminating in a $2.7 million network of air quality sensors. However, they feel little long-term relief.

This paper examines how and why residents’ experiences have been incommensurate with environmental policymaking and how technical elites contribute to shaping those conditions. I illustrate how grassroots resident-activists construct and deploy embodied air pollution knowledge, utilizing sensorial experiences and networks of community trust to challenge official, technical knowledge. In doing so, I elucidate how these activists bring environmental harm “emotionally to life” to counter state data that de-humanizes the consequences of persistent air pollution. Then, I analyze disconnects between different stakeholders' perceptions of barriers to improved air pollution policy. I argue that dominant actors deploy a data deficit frame, promoting exclusively technical, data-driven solutions. Then, I detail how activists challenge these efforts; instead, situating regulatory inaction as a systemic problem embedded within neoliberal regulation and racial capitalism. Overall, I argue that air pollution governance and associated actors co-opt the language of the EJ movement, channeling attention and resources into technical solutions that do not alleviate harm.