The nomadic communities in France are facing what many describe as environmental racism, living in close proximity to polluted areas like the Lubrizol chemical plant and the Normandie Logistique warehouses in Rouen. These sites were in the news in 2019 when a fire broke out at the warehouses, highlighting the dangers faced by those living nearby. William Acker, a lawyer and author from these communities, discusses the challenges they endure, including a lack of proper housing, which often leads to the creation of illegal settlements. There are around 300,000 people living nomadically in France, but only 26,000 reception places are available, meaning that families are frequently evicted every two weeks without any clear solution. Those who find a place in reception areas live in spaces originally intended for temporary parking, which many have turned into permanent homes. Leaving these spaces risks losing their place and facing administrative difficulties. In the town of Petit-Quevilly, near Rouen, families lived at the Lubrizol site for about twenty years before the fire. It is nearly impossible to buy land and settle there, as urban planning laws in most communes prohibit the use of caravans for living, even on private land. This is only allowed if the local mayor permits it. Those living in forced wandering often become "social ghosts," only noticed through their legal issues or the presence of illegal settlements. Environmental racism, a term that originated in the United States in the 1980s, is used to describe the disproportionate impact of environmental harm on marginalized communities. In France, this is particularly evident among nomads, who are affected by the Besson law. This law, enacted in 2000, requires communes with over 5,000 inhabitants to provide areas for nomadic communities. However, these areas are often located in polluted or industrial zones, reflecting a systemic form of environmental racism. The law was created to address the need for rapid development of these spaces without strict guidelines on their location. As a result, local authorities have often chosen sites that are easier to manage, even if they are near hazardous areas. These choices have led to the creation of reception areas that are often near factories, landfills, and other industrial sites, where land is cheaper. This reflects a will to exclude these communities, whether openly or unconsciously. In response to growing concerns, the French government added an environmental criterion to the allocation of subsidies in 2022. However, this measure is considered weak in addressing the actual needs of the nomadic communities. Travelers have long reported health issues linked to their living conditions. A study by Santé publique France in 2024 confirmed that the health of nomads is significantly worse than the national average, with issues such as hypertension, stress, obesity, and mental health problems being more common among them. William Acker describes a societal "organized indifference" to the challenges faced by nomads, rather than a deliberate racist choice. He explains that local authorities would prefer to do without the nomads if possible, but the Besson law provides them with a legal framework to manage these communities. Article 9 of the law allows a commune that has created a reception area to ban nomads from settling elsewhere in the area. This has led to various approaches among communes, some preferring to expel nomads more easily, while others prefer to group them in distant locations. However, the legal and administrative system often results in the marginalization of nomads, regardless of the intentions of local authorities. When nomads request land, ecological arguments are often used against them. This can include accusations that they are invaders who misuse resources, such as hunting or farming. Some areas are also designated as protected, preventing the establishment of reception or housing spaces. There are even proposals in Parliament to use "ecological damage" as a reason for evicting nomadic camps. This shows how environmental law can be used to reinforce exclusion. William Acker highlights the importance of ecological movements adopting an anti-racist approach. He warns that if environmentalism does not take this stance, it could eventually support far-right policies, a phenomenon he calls "eco-fascism." He points out that other populations in France also suffer from environmental racism, often in areas where territories are exploited at the expense of marginalized groups. These include the nuclear tests conducted in Algeria and Polynesia, the use of the pesticide chlordécone in Martinique, and the mercury pollution in Guyana affecting indigenous peoples. These examples show a pattern of slow violence, where the negative effects of environmental harm are not always immediately visible but accumulate over time. The ecological movement has begun to address these issues, with more anti-racist ecological organizations emerging. However, William Acker notes that these meetings often lack diversity and a strong anti-racist stance. There is, however, hope as seen in events like the festival Les Résistantes in 2025. The urgency is clear, especially with the potential rise of the far right in 2027, which could offer new political narratives. To address these issues, it is necessary to unite different struggles and create inclusive organizations that reflect the needs of all communities. William Acker emphasizes the need for the progressive movement to be more unified and to tell a common story. This includes addressing issues like anti-Gypsy sentiment and ensuring that the voices of those affected are heard. He speaks of the importance of convergence of struggles, not just as a slogan but as a real effort to create organizations that are democratic and attentive to all people. This includes challenging the "white center" of many ecological spaces and for white people to give up some comfort, power, and privileges. To change the situation of nomadic communities, it is necessary to consider them as full citizens. In France, citizenship is tied to having a stable home, making it difficult for nomads to access public services and social rights. Solutions are not necessarily expensive but require political will and the creation of policies that recognize the rights of all people, regardless of their housing situation. As long as the gap between the number of nomads and the number of available housing spaces remains, there will be illegal settlements. This situation is not only costly but also increases marginalization and feeds hatred. William Acker concludes that nomadism has never truly existed in France, as all people have a connection to their territory. They do not need to be integrated, they are already part of the society. What they ask for is the same rights as everyone else.