Analyze

Bahía de los Ángeles, México.

Misria
In response to

Youth's brilliance and their fascination with the wickedness of plastic pollution are forming shoals of abundant possibility and collective futurity amid the rising tides of environmental destruction hitting Bahía de los Ángeles, México. Working in an entangled community with professional scientists, government conservationists, traditional outdoor educators, store owners, school principals, chefs, artists, and family this group of youth (ages 7-17) labor and dream as scientists and cartographers of the future. They voice unpopular questions and concerns, embody lives they mourn leaving behind but understand can't persist, demand more from adults and tourists, labor for imperfect data that they hope will hold community accountability, and (re)map community infrastructure, tracts of refuse, flows of water, chains of fossil fuel transport, food systems, and fishing practices. Despite these undeniable contributions, often adult partners in this work are still slow to take youth thinking and resistance seriously---it is easier to mediate on shortcomings or flaws in youths' epistemologies. Ignoring these sophisticated shoals is a flagrant dismissal of the pluralist thought and perspective required to attend, nonetheless halt, environmental injustices. As adults labor on/for youths' futures there should be a constant disruption of who holds expertise and why and rigorous attention given to youth voice.

Fowler, Kelsie. 2023. "Youth and Community Knowledges Create Thick Shoals of Abundance Amid the Plastiocene." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

Raman5

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

They rename the things that people accuse them of, even as they acknowledge the accusation. They keep using the term “biosolids” instead of “hazardous waste” or “toxins”. They produced reports that denied each allegation. From their Our Environmental Values 2003 report: “In our opinion, the balance of evidence including testing and analysis by independent laboratories and the Indian government shows that the allegations against Coca Cola have not been substantiated.” They also tried to show progress against the accusations with their CSR initiatives - including reduction of water use ratio, rainwater harvesting, HIV AIDS projects - cooperating with USAID and UN. They also build up an image of corporate philanthropy with sponsoring sports, especially the Olympics and FIFA, and just branding by having their vending machines on college campuses. 

They tried to suppress a report that shows how toxic their waste is, and that it is useless as fertilizer (I did like the “extraordinary practice of distributing toxic wastes to the farmers as fertilizers” quote on 108). 

 

Raman4

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

There’s no exploration of what corporate actors are thinking. Or really the villagers either. The corporation here is portrayed as willfully and knowingly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the marginalized people of India. The CSR reports are mostly empty and incorrect responses to the accusations coca cola faced, so they don’t really claim any help.

Raman3

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

The corporation really denies its responsibility here… simply refusing to put on their labels the chemical makeup of their product. They do perform an extent of responsibility about the water usage, though they twist the words of the report commissioned by High Court of Kerala to make it seem like it’s really just the low rainfall that’s making a water shortage, and that the court endorses their continued use of the groundwater. The author says “independent study” in quotes - but doesn’t get into to what extent and the study was compromised. 

 

The article points out the differences in how Coca Cola behaves in the US and UK versus in India - the US products don’t contain pesticides and do comply to laws about levels of toxic materials in beverages. In the UK, complaints about the product led to recalls. In India they deny that the consumer has the right to know what poison chemicals are in the beverage even though Indian law does grant this right to consumers, even after the court has found there to be harmful and illegal levels of toxins in the beverages.

 

Raman2

lucypei
Annotation of
In response to

The corporation just doesn’t listen to the court demands that the state courts rule in India. The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that coca cola had to test the beverages and disclose on the labels the full composition, including chemicals that were found in the drink. Coca Cola just refused - they said it was not required by law, and didn’t even brand their action as CSR. Elsewhere they claimed that their levels complied with the law or were better. (Even though it was just not true in this case). “Not bound by law to make such a disclosure, and that if the water it uses does contain pesticides, the company could hardly be held responsible for it… ...Divulging information with regard to the presence or absence of DDT from its beverages was not relevant to the debate. It even went so far as to question the material relevance of such information imparted to the consumers, denying that the consumers had any right to an informed choice before selecting, buying, and consuming the products…. Refused to comply…” p114. They just complained this was part of trade war