In Korea’s fast-paced society, the pursuit of convenience has made cheap, disposable products and ultra-processed foods a staple of daily life. From single-use plastics to calorie-dense packaged meals, these items offer affordability and practicality to time-pressed households. But hidden beneath their veneer of convenience is an uncomfortable reality: their long-term costs—environmental degradation, health risks, and systemic inequality—are disproportionately borne by society’s most vulnerable.
Low-income families often rely on ultra-processed foods, which are not only more affordable but also more accessible in urban “food deserts” where fresh produce is scarce. These products, packaged in layers of disposable plastic, contribute to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses. Meanwhile, microplastics from food containers and waste mismanagement infiltrate ecosystems and water supplies, creating invisible yet pervasive health hazards. Together, these issues highlight the intersection of economic vulnerability and environmental risks.
This reality points to a deeper systemic failure: the collapse of distributive justice. Philosopher John Rawls envisioned a just society where the least advantaged are shielded from harm, yet modern economic systems have reversed this principle. Low-income communities not only rely on products that harm their health but also endure the environmental fallout of waste incineration, landfill overflows, and industrial pollution. The very structures meant to support these communities instead perpetuate cycles of risk and poverty.
From overflowing landfills to the health burdens of ultra-processed foods, modern convenience has become a mechanism of inequality. Wealthier populations, with their access to eco-friendly alternatives and green technologies, insulate themselves from these risks. Meanwhile, the economically disadvantaged are left to shoulder the heaviest burdens—an unsettling reflection of how environmental, economic, and health risks are stratified in our society.
The Risk Market: How Modern Capitalism Betrays Distributive Justice
John Rawls, in his seminal work A Theory of Justice, articulated a principle that remains profoundly relevant today: a society is just only when its inequalities are arranged to benefit the least advantaged. In this vision, justice demands that the most vulnerable members of society be shielded from harm and provided with opportunities for improvement. Yet, in the mechanisms of modern capitalism, this principle has not only been ignored—it has been inverted. The inequalities in our systems now amplify harm, exposing the disadvantaged to ever-greater environmental and health risks.
This betrayal of distributive justice is starkly visible in what can be called the “risk market.” In this market, the products and conditions that low-income families depend on—cheap plastics, ultra-processed foods, and polluted living spaces—carry hidden dangers that disproportionately affect their health and well-being.
| Income Level | Food Choices | Living Environment | Healthcare Access |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Income | Organic, fresh produce | Green, low-pollution neighborhoods | Preventative and tailored care |
| Low Income | Ultra-processed foods (high in salt, sugar, and fat) | Industrial zones, polluted areas | Emergency room dependency |
Take the example of ultra-processed foods, which are often the only affordable option for low-income families. These products, heavily packaged in disposable plastics, dominate supermarkets in underprivileged neighborhoods. These areas, often referred to as “food deserts,” are characterized by a lack of access to fresh, nutritious options. Instead, shelves are lined with calorie-dense, nutrient-poor products high in salt, sugar, and unhealthy fats. For families trying to stretch limited budgets, these products may provide short-term sustenance, but they also lead to long-term health consequences—higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses are tragically predictable outcomes of this systemic inequality.
The same cycle applies to cheap plastics. For economically disadvantaged households, these disposable items—single-use containers, plastic cutlery, and non-durable goods—are not just a convenience; they are a necessity. Their low cost ensures widespread use, but their short lifespan necessitates frequent replacements, creating a “disposability trap.” This cycle fuels overconsumption and waste, further entrenching environmental and economic inequality. By contrast, wealthier households, armed with greater purchasing power, can afford reusable or biodegradable alternatives that reduce waste and minimize exposure to harmful microplastics.
This structural injustice extends beyond consumer products to the very spaces where people live. The concept of environmental racism, where hazardous facilities, industrial zones, and landfills are disproportionately located in low-income areas, is a modern-day manifestation of systemic discrimination. These communities face higher exposure to air and water pollution, increasing their health risks while limiting their opportunities for escape. This spatial inequality mirrors Rawls’ concern for how geography and economic status compound vulnerability, creating a reality where the least advantaged are systematically confined to areas of environmental and social harm.
Even the moral responsibility to “choose sustainability” is unequally distributed. Campaigns encouraging reduced plastic use or healthier food choices often fail to recognize the economic realities of low-income households. Switching to eco-friendly alternatives or fresh produce often requires financial resources that many do not have. This dynamic becomes even more problematic when leaders reinforce narratives that treat inequality as a matter of “choice.” For instance, President Yoon Suk-yeol, during his candidacy, suggested that substandard food could remain an affordable option for economically disadvantaged families. While framed as a practical defense of consumer choice, such arguments overlook the systemic factors that force low-income communities to rely on harmful products in the first place. The expectation of ethical consumption therefore becomes a privilege of wealthier populations, leaving vulnerable communities stigmatized as environmental “offenders” despite their limited agency.
Ultimately, the collapse of distributive justice in this “risk market” reveals the structural flaws of modern capitalism. It is no longer just a system that tolerates inequality—it is one that perpetuates and magnifies it. The stratification of risk, deeply embedded in our economic and environmental systems, has become an engine of injustice, driving cycles of harm that disproportionately affect the least advantaged.
To reverse this trend, we must stop framing sustainability and justice as individual responsibilities and instead focus on systemic accountability. Policies that redistribute the burdens of progress, hold corporations accountable for their environmental impact, and make sustainable alternatives accessible to all are not just idealistic—they are essential. Only by addressing the root causes of inequality can we hope to restore the principles of justice Rawls envisioned.
The Cognitive Cost of Inequality: How Poverty Shapes Risk and Resignation
Behind every systemic inequality lies an equally pervasive, yet often invisible, layer of barriers: the psychological cost of living in a risk-stratified society. Poverty does not merely limit financial resources—it constrains cognitive bandwidth, shapes decision-making, and reinforces cycles of inequality. For low-income families navigating the intersecting challenges of environmental harm and economic precarity, these cognitive barriers exacerbate their vulnerability and make escaping the cycle of risk even harder.
One of the most insidious forces at play is the scarcity mindset, a psychological state in which immediate needs dominate, leaving little room for long-term planning or decision-making. For families struggling to make ends meet, the luxury of considering sustainability often feels unattainable. Imagine a working mother juggling multiple part-time jobs to provide for her children. For her, disposable plastic containers and pre-packaged meals are not simply choices—they are survival tools. While these products save time and money in the short term, they carry hidden long-term costs: exposure to microplastics, reliance on unhealthy foods, and the perpetuation of unsustainable consumption habits.
This scarcity-driven decision-making is not a failure of personal responsibility but a reflection of systemic inequities. When resources like time, money, and access are perpetually constrained, individuals are forced to prioritize the immediate over the durable, the cheap over the sustainable. This creates a vicious cycle where short-term solutions drive long-term vulnerabilities, reinforcing poverty’s grip on the most disadvantaged.
Compounding this issue is learned helplessness, a psychological state that emerges when individuals believe their actions cannot alter their circumstances. For many living near industrial zones or landfills, pollution is a constant, inescapable reality. Decades of neglect by policymakers and inaction by corporations erode the belief that change is possible. Over time, this sense of resignation undermines not just individual agency but the collective power needed to demand systemic reform. Communities become trapped in a feedback loop where environmental degradation feels inevitable, and the motivation to resist dwindles.
Adding another layer of complexity is the social stigma attached to unsustainable practices. Environmental campaigns often frame sustainability as an individual moral responsibility: reduce, reuse, recycle. But this narrative ignores the economic realities of low-income households, where the financial barriers to eco-friendly alternatives are steep. A family struggling to put food on the table may rely on disposable plastics and ultra-processed meals, not because they lack awareness, but because the alternatives are out of reach. These families, however, often face societal judgment as contributors to environmental harm, while corporations—the true drivers of waste and overproduction—escape scrutiny.
This misplaced moral framing not only stigmatizes vulnerable populations but also shifts attention away from the systemic roots of environmental crises. Sustainability, as currently framed, becomes a privilege—a lifestyle afforded to those with the resources to participate. Meanwhile, the economically disadvantaged are left to shoulder both the burden of blame and the consequences of systemic failures.
These overlapping cognitive barriers—scarcity, helplessness, and stigma—do more than reinforce inequality; they sustain the very systems that create it. Families locked in cycles of disposable consumption and poor health outcomes are also locked out of the environmental movement, their participation constrained by circumstances beyond their control. This exclusion weakens the collective force needed to challenge systemic issues, leaving the risk market unchallenged and inequality unaddressed.
Breaking these barriers requires systemic solutions that address both the material and psychological realities of poverty. Governments and corporations must take responsibility for reducing the cognitive and financial burdens placed on low-income households. Subsidies for eco-friendly products, investments in accessible public health campaigns, and education programs that highlight the structural nature of environmental risks can shift the focus from individual blame to collective accountability.
Above all, the narrative around sustainability must change. It must recognize that low-income families are not obstacles to environmental progress—they are victims of a system that prioritizes convenience and profit over justice and equity. By empowering these communities with resources and a seat at the table, society can move closer to a vision of sustainability that is inclusive, equitable, and truly transformative.
The Risk-Poverty Trap: How Inequality Feeds a Self-Perpetuating Cycle
Inequality is not static—it is cyclical. The poorest communities often find themselves trapped in a self-perpetuating loop where economic vulnerability and environmental risk reinforce one another, deepening the divide between those who can escape these hazards and those who cannot. This is the risk-poverty trap: a system that entangles the economically disadvantaged in a web of harm while enabling the privileged to insulate themselves from its effects.
At its core, this cycle is driven by a grim paradox. Products like cheap plastics and ultra-processed foods are marketed as affordable solutions for low-income families, offering short-term convenience and cost savings. But these same products lock consumers into long-term harm. The disposable nature of cheap plastics creates reliance on items that require frequent replacement, funneling limited household budgets into an endless cycle of consumption. Meanwhile, ultra-processed foods packaged in these plastics lead to rising rates of chronic illnesses such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease—conditions that disproportionately affect those with the least access to healthcare.
The harms do not end with the products themselves. Low-income communities are also burdened with the environmental fallout of these consumption patterns. Landfills and waste incinerators are often located in or near these neighborhoods, exposing residents to higher levels of air and water pollution. These same communities are also more likely to face climate-related risks, such as flooding or extreme heat, due to poor infrastructure and inadequate public investment. For families already struggling to make ends meet, the cumulative effects of these risks—lost workdays due to illness, rising medical bills, and deteriorating living conditions—deepen their economic precarity, creating a feedback loop that is increasingly difficult to escape.
This vicious cycle is compounded by the psychological barriers that inequality creates. Scarcity mindset forces families to focus on immediate survival rather than long-term planning, making sustainable choices feel unattainable. Learned helplessness saps the will to resist systemic injustices, while social stigma further isolates vulnerable populations from broader environmental movements. These cognitive barriers reinforce the risk-poverty trap, creating conditions where systemic change feels impossible.
Meanwhile, wealthier households exist in a parallel reality. With access to organic food, reusable products, and homes in green, low-pollution neighborhoods, they are largely insulated from the risks borne by their less advantaged counterparts. This bifurcation of experience creates what could be described as a “risk market,” where safety and sustainability are sold as privileges to those who can afford them. The very economic system that creates environmental harm also profits from selling its solutions—air purifiers, green technologies, and luxury eco-products—leaving low-income families to shoulder both the risks and the costs.
Breaking this cycle requires more than individual action or incremental change—it demands systemic reform. Governments must step in to redistribute the costs of environmental harm through policies like plastic taxes and extended producer responsibility (EPR). These measures can ensure that corporations, not taxpayers, bear the financial burden of waste management. Investments in public health and infrastructure, particularly in low-income communities, are equally critical to reducing vulnerability and creating pathways out of the risk-poverty trap.
Equally important is shifting the narrative around sustainability. When individuals are blamed for systemic failures—whether it’s their reliance on cheap plastics or their inability to afford fresh produce—it obscures the role of corporations and policymakers in perpetuating these inequities. By reframing sustainability as a collective responsibility rather than a personal choice, society can begin to hold those in power accountable for the structural changes needed to create a more just and equitable future.
The risk-poverty trap is not inevitable—it is a product of systemic choices that can be unmade. By addressing the root causes of inequality, empowering vulnerable communities, and ensuring that sustainability is accessible to all, we can begin to dismantle this self-perpetuating cycle. True progress lies not in insulating the privileged but in ensuring that no one is left behind.
Breaking the Cycle: A Path to Inclusive Justice
The risk-poverty trap is not an inevitable consequence of progress—it is the result of systemic choices. Choices made by governments, corporations, and society have created a world where risks are stratified, opportunities are unevenly distributed, and the most vulnerable are left to bear the brunt of environmental and economic harm. Breaking this cycle requires bold, systemic action that places justice and equity at the heart of every solution.
For governments, this begins with policy reforms that redistribute responsibility and ensure that the benefits of progress are accessible to all. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies, for example, can hold corporations accountable for the full lifecycle of their products, from production to disposal. By making polluters pay for the waste they generate, these measures not only reduce the burden on taxpayers but also incentivize sustainable innovation. Imagine a world where every plastic container, package, or product is designed for reuse or biodegradability—not because of individual choices, but because corporations are required to prioritize sustainability over profit.
Governments must also bridge the gap between sustainability and affordability. Subsidies for eco-friendly products, such as reusable containers or biodegradable materials, can make these options accessible to low-income families. Investments in public infrastructure—like affordable public transportation, clean energy, and community recycling programs—are equally critical. When governments prioritize sustainability in public spending, they signal that sustainability is not just a luxury for the wealthy but a shared value for everyone.
Corporations, too, have a pivotal role to play. For decades, businesses have reaped profits from the rapid consumption of disposable products while externalizing the environmental costs onto society. This cycle must end. Companies must prioritize sustainable design, ensuring that their products are not only functional but also environmentally responsible. Transparency is key—corporations should disclose the environmental impact of their goods, including recyclability and carbon footprints, empowering consumers to make informed choices. Beyond their products, companies have a responsibility to reinvest in the communities they serve, funding local sustainability initiatives and creating pathways for community empowerment.
But systemic reforms alone are not enough. Real change requires empowering the very communities most affected by these issues. Grassroots movements have long been at the forefront of environmental justice, offering innovative solutions tailored to local needs. Community-led recycling programs, urban gardens in food deserts, and educational campaigns to raise awareness of environmental risks are just a few examples of how local action can drive meaningful change. By providing financial and technical support to these movements, governments and corporations can amplify their impact and ensure that solutions are driven by the people who know their communities best.
Finally, society must confront and reframe the narrative around sustainability. For too long, the burden of environmental responsibility has been placed on individuals, particularly those least equipped to bear it. Campaigns urging consumers to “reduce, reuse, and recycle” often fail to acknowledge the systemic barriers that make these practices difficult or impossible for low-income families. This framing not only stigmatizes vulnerable populations but also obscures the structural causes of environmental harm.
True sustainability requires shifting the focus from individual actions to collective responsibility. This means holding corporations and policymakers accountable for the structural changes needed to create a more equitable society. It also means recognizing that low-income families are not obstacles to environmental progress—they are critical partners in achieving it. By empowering these communities and providing them with the resources and agency to participate fully in sustainability efforts, society can move closer to a vision of justice that includes everyone.
The path to inclusive justice is neither quick nor easy, but it is essential. A society that allows its most vulnerable members to shoulder the heaviest burdens while the privileged enjoy the benefits of sustainability is a society in crisis. By addressing the systemic roots of inequality, redistributing risks and resources, and committing to collective action, we can break the cycle of harm and build a future where justice and sustainability go hand in hand.
A Just and Sustainable Future: Shared Responsibility, Collective Action
Modern society stands at a crossroads. The conveniences of cheap plastics, ultra-processed foods, and mass consumption have come at a staggering cost. While the wealthiest among us can shield themselves from the fallout, the most vulnerable bear the brunt of a system that prioritizes profit over equity, short-term gain over long-term sustainability. This is the reality of a stratified risk society—a world where inequality isn’t just tolerated, but perpetuated.
But this future is not inevitable. The collapse of distributive justice, the commodification of risk, and the psychological toll of poverty are not natural phenomena; they are systemic outcomes born of deliberate choices. And they can be unmade. Building a just and sustainable future requires collective responsibility: from governments, corporations, and communities alike.
Governments must recognize that true progress lies not in economic growth for its own sake but in how that growth is distributed. Policies that hold corporations accountable for their environmental impact and ensure sustainable alternatives are accessible to all are essential first steps. Plastic taxes, extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs, and investments in public health and green infrastructure can begin to redistribute the burdens of environmental harm. Leadership, at its best, must prioritize the well-being of the least advantaged, echoing John Rawls’ vision of justice.
Corporations, too, have a moral obligation to shift their priorities. The era of unchecked consumption, where products are designed to be disposable and profits come at the expense of the planet, must end. Companies must embrace transparency, sustainability, and responsibility—not as public relations strategies but as foundational values. Their decisions must reflect a commitment to equity, ensuring that their innovations benefit all, not just the privileged few.
Communities, particularly those most affected by systemic inequities, have already shown what is possible when empowered with resources and agency. Grassroots movements have turned urban food deserts into community gardens, built cooperative recycling programs from the ground up, and demanded accountability from the powerful. These efforts remind us that those who face the greatest challenges often hold the greatest potential for driving change.
Finally, as individuals, we must reframe our understanding of sustainability. The narrative that places the burden of responsibility on individual actions while ignoring systemic causes is not only unfair—it is ineffective. Choosing reusable products or recycling more often, while valuable, cannot alone address the scale of the challenges we face. Instead, we must direct our energies toward demanding systemic change: from the policies that shape our economy to the corporations that drive consumption patterns.
A just and sustainable future is not just a dream; it is a necessity. The world we leave for future generations will be defined by the choices we make today. Will we continue to stratify risk, leaving the least advantaged to bear the heaviest burdens? Or will we recognize that justice and sustainability are inextricably linked, requiring a commitment to equity at every level of society?
The answer lies in collective action. Together, we can dismantle the systems that perpetuate inequality and rebuild a society where sustainability is not a privilege but a shared value. Progress is not measured by convenience or profit—it is measured by justice. And justice demands that no one, regardless of their income, geography, or circumstances, be left behind.
Leave a Reply