Analyze

Operations of transnational companies are affecting marginalized communities across the globe. As Kaswan had highlighted through examples of Union Carbide’s pesticide plant in India, as well as pollution associated with oil companies in Latin America, the implications of distributive environmental justice in such contexts are apparent yet difficult to address. Across international boundaries law enforcement becomes increasingly difficult, which is at the heart of the problem of my research topic. 

“The “right” scale will depend upon the nature of the harm being analyzed and purpose for which information is being gathered.” (Kaswan, p 29)

“Numerous studies, at a multiplicity of scales, analyze the distribution of a wide variety of land uses, as well as risk: what exposures, with what consequences, do people experience?” (Kaswan, p 33). 

This text builds on concepts of equality, bases for deviating from the core idea of equality, and the multiple contexts that define and shape distributive justice. Kaswan additionally advances the distributive environmental justice by outlining the different contexts, including historical land use patterns, government regulations, infrastructure, and enforcement and the implications that each of these dimensions have on contributing to distributive injustice. 

The main narrative of this text builds on foundational ideas on equality and extrapolates it further to establish how distributive environmental justice, its ideas and articulations, as well as its operationalization, has taken shape throughout the years. To outline these points, Kaswan outlines different cases of environmental disaster, and subsequent government responses, to showcase how government institutions have both upheld and endeavored to address distributive environmental inequality in the past decades.

Characterization of loss from Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (2018) within the Evaluation report on 10-year implementation of the national policy for ‘agriculture-farmer-rural’ development [ not available for public view] 

• “ Aquaculture households have lost 503.2 million VND (21,665 USD) per household, then fishing households 231.3 million VND (9958 USD) per household, and coastal service households 102.0 million VND (4392 USD) per household. Note that both fishing and fish farming households lost similar por- tions of their total income, around 98 percent, even as fish farmers earn twice that of fishers on average. In a country where the average yearly income of rural households is 130 million VND or 5600 USD (MARD, 2018), losing an average of 11,000 USD per household is significant.” (Truong et al., 2021, p 8). 

Characterization of the compensation schemes adopted by Vietnam’s government:

• “According to a report by the Ministry of Finance in 2018, the government was able to provide direct cash compensation to those identified as being impacted across the four provinces. This is because of the settlement with Taiwan Formosa Plastics for 500 million USD. In addition to cash, the Vietnamese government gave over 19,000 tonnes of rice to impacted households in the months following the fish kill. The government also monitored the safety of the ocean environment. As the government switched from emergency relief to recovery support, more programmes were introduced including loan access, scholarships for students, health insurance, and livelihood training pro- grammes. The government also worked with the Fisheries Department and other relevant agencies to build environmental monitoring systems, provide consistent water testing, engage in food safety monitoring, and work towards ecological rehabilitation of aquatic stocks” (Truong et al., 2021, p 10). 

“Environmental disasters have a tendency to further increase work precarity, particularly in places that are highly dependent on eco- logical resources (Marschke et al., 2020). Livelihoods, as such, may need to transform rather than persist in the face of crises (Alexander, 2013).” (Truong, 2021, pg 3)

“ Vietnam has struggled with ineffective environmental regulatory programmes or insufficient enforcement capabilities to ensure adequate protection of the environment as Vietnam develops (Fortier, 2010). Environmental impact assessments (EIA), in general, are viewed as bureaucracy rather than as an important aspect of the development approval process (Wells-Dang et al., 2016).” (Truong, 2021, pg 4)

The narrative of the text highlights the following key points extrapolated from survey responses and interview participants:

• Impacts of the Formosa disaster on households vary by livelihood strategies, and were particularly amplified for poorer households, women, and households without diversified livelihood strategies. 

• Coping mechanisms of households primarily involved reducing household expenditures, accessing loans, adopting a new livelihood strategy, and expanding existing livelihood strategies. However, adoption rates of these coping mechanisms vary across households with livelihoods across the service, fishing, and fish farming enterprises. 

• Compensation, though cited to have ignited protests from parties not qualified for restitution, did offer substantial help to those who were able to receive compensation. Additionally, compensation delivery was delayed (between one to two years after the incident was reported), further escalating impacts across families without savings. 

• Economic recovery of household income 30 months after the Formosa incident indicates that the majority of households have recovered their livelihood activities. However, this does not take into account families who are no longer in the region (out migrated following the disaster prior to the inception of this study).

Authors of the publication have affiliations to the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry and the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The funding for this study comes from the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development.

            This past spring break (2016), on a Monday night while at home, I responded to a motor vehicle accident as a Good Samaritan. The accident happened at approximately 19:00 hours on my street in Blackstone, Massachusetts. My father was on our front porch when he heard a car barreling down our back country road which has a long straight away before taking a sharp turn. Before the impact he knew that the driver would not anticipate the curve fast enough at the speed he was traveling. Sure enough, there was a loud bang and the sound of a car rolling over, which I could hear from inside the house (approximately ¼ mile from crash).

I grabbed both of my personal first aid kits and a flashlight while my father called emergency services. I walked to scene with my father and younger brother. I sped walked and arrived at the crash site first.

The vehicle was a ‘90s sedan that went straight into a telephone pole, which broke like a toothpick, and rebounded backwards and flipped 90 degrees on its left side. Parts of the car, tools, and glass were on ground, airbags deployed. There was a car seat in back, and for a moment I thought a child but it was just clothing. Front right tire was up inside front passenger compartment. Hazards flashing. Driver window was rolled down. No people in the car.

My brother and father directed traffic on either end of the crash site. They almost certainly prevented at another crash by a car who didn’t see the accident but saw my brother flag them down with his light.

I saw man standing 20’ from crash site, talking to people in a gold SUV. When I arrived I start asking medical questions and the people in the SUV leave – they were by standards who pulled up but left after I started taking over. The man in question appeared to be a lower/middle class white/Hispanic, male in his 30s. He was driving an older car with lots of tools in the back which were now all over the road. Our neighborhood is a small country community and I know he was not from our neighborhood. I assumed he was some kind of mechanic, bases on tools in car. He was wearing dirty jeans and stained hoodie. He was definitely a blue-collar worker. He may have been from downtown Blackstone which is largely lower middle class and blue collar, or he may have been from Woonsocket, Rhode Island, which is known as “the Detroit of Rhode Island”.

As I tried to obtain basic medical information from the patient, it was apparent he had an altered mental status, and did not appear to understand fully what was going on. I am not certain if it was alcohol and/or drugs as for safety reasons I did not get close enough to the patient/suspect to tell. He was ambulatory and verbal. The interesting part of our conversation was to the best of my ability as follows:

“Are you sure you’re okay? Umm yeah. Are you hurt anywhere? I’m fine. [I did visual inspection of patient using flashlight which revealed no major injuries other than minor cuts from airbag]. [He starts to edge away from scene]. You should wait for ems to check you out. Wait, you’re right! I might die?! You appear to be okay externally but things like internal bleeding, and a full assessment could reveal other problems. Naaaa [turns and starts to walk away down street]”

I attempted to convince the patient to wait on scene but he was going through several mode swings during my interactions with him from fear, anxiety, agitation, and anger. While I was talking to the patient, the first officer from the neighboring town arrived on a motor cycle. I informed the officer at the scene of the situation about the patient/suspect fleeing the scene. The officer took note of it and continued to work to secure the crash site. Another officer arrive from my town from the west. I informed the same and he stated that he would need me to make a witness statement and proceeded to the crash site. A third and fourth officer arrived together the same time as two ambulances (indicated because of rollover) from the east. One of them told me again that they would need a witness statement.

I met back up with my dad and brother who were no longer needed to control traffic with law enforcement on scene. Neighbors had started coming out to see the commotion. We were all talking near the scene while waiting for officers. Finally one of the officers asked another officer if he should go look for the suspect. He left approximately 20 minutes after my last contact. I never spoke with the arriving EMS as they came from the east and I was on the west of the accident but officers told them that the patient was missing. Eventually multiple officers and cars were out looking for patient/suspect but was not found as far as I am aware. I finally was given the chance to give my testimony which, to the best of my knowledge, mirrors this report. After reading out loud in front of the officer and my father and brother to confirm accuracy, the officer asked me something very strange. First, he asked me to add what the suspect was wearing (which I had forget to include), but then he also asked me to state that I saw the suspect drive into the telephone pole and that I smelled alcohol on the patients breath. Neither of these things were what I told any of the officers and ran counter to my testimony as written. I include the suspect’s clothing description but I did not add the second mention and stated that I had not witnessed those things. After my report I left the scene with my brother and father.

Some of the policies and procedures relevant to this case were: scene safety, dealing with aggressive/combative patients, and HIPPA did not apply to me as a bystander so I gave full testimony including medical status to the officers.

After reflecting on the education I received and didn't receive, there are a few things that would have allowed me to be better prepared for this incident. How do I convince patients to stay on scene? When do you give up? I wish my EMT class was a little better scene on safety training. Being distracted by the emergency at hand, I did not truly take into account the fact that the power lines were live and drooping with half of the telephone poll pulling on them. Only supported by the next and previous poll but not drooping more than 3’ from normal, more than 15’ from ground, and 10’ above vehicle. Reflecting on it, I did not really consider the threat as I should have, and neither did the officers on scene. I don’t understand why it took so long for police to search for the suspect who could have had major medical issues. Should I have followed suspect/patient alone? When is a citizen arrest allowed/appropriate? Should I have asked for the badge number of the officer who asked me to misrepresent the truth on an eye witness testimony? What is the process to do that anyway? If I had the answers to these questions I feel I may have been able to provide better assistance, but then again perhaps not.