Environmental Risks and Environmental Justice, Or How Titanic Risks Are Not So Titanic After All

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00344.x Byline: Margarita V. Alario (1), William R. Freudenburg (2) Abstract: Some of the best-known social scientific theories of risks are those that have been elaborated by Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck. Although their arguments differ greatly, they agree in seeing the technologically induced risks of today's 'Risk Society' as global-so pervasive that they transcend all socioeconomic as well as geopolitical and national boundaries. Most empirical work, however, provides greater support for a theoretical tradition exemplified by Short and Erikson. In this paper, we argue that many of the technological mega-risks described by Giddens and Beck as 'transcending' social boundaries are better described as 'Titanic risks,' referring not so much to their colossal impact as to the fact that-as was the case for the majority of the victims on the Titanic-actual risks are related to victims' socioeconomic as well as sociogeographic locations. Previous research has shown this to be the case with high-risk technologies, such as nuclear energy and weaponry, and also with localized ones, such as toxic waste disposal. This article illustrates that the same is true even for the most genuinely 'global' risks of all, namely those associated with global climate disruption. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Wisconsin, Whitewater (2)University of California, Santa Barbara