In terms of an overview, I thought that the event was a good review and summary of the international offenses of Formosa Plastics. As a researcher, I would like to know more about the different panelists' views on what can be done in each setting, as many have stated a lot of the historical offenses but left out their answers to the lead organizers' questions posed in the beginning of the event.
The concept of accountability was repeatedly brought up throughout this event. Lawyer Larochelle has stated, "There is no clear path for someone to hold accountability for what happened; there is a gap, accountability gap that exists all over. People need to organize, lawyers, academics."
Philippe Larochelle, a lawyer that works out of Montreal Canada but has been working on international criminal law cases and class action on environmental matters, which has led to his work now with Nancy Bui on Formosa.
Larochelle did his best to address a few of the questions posed by the lead organizers in the beginning of the event:
What are the main injustices happening with Formosa Plastics Corporation?
What do you think should be done?
Out of many of the panelists, I found Larochelle to be one of the few that really attempted to address these questions and answer to best of his expertise on the legal matters surrounding the Formosa case in Vietnam and Taiwan. Many Zoom attendees wanted him to expand on his statement of how Taiwan's stance as "not completely a country" making it challenging to operate in that environment when it comes to international law. Later on, he answered via Zoom chat that there is a disconnect between Taiwan and international law as there is no access to UN special procedures, but it is "very possible to sue Formosa there".
Diane Wilson: advocate in Calhoun County, Texas
Paul Jobin: a sociologist, academic at a university in Taiwan
Ta Du’c Tri: mayor of the city of westminster, Vietnamese-American
-The mayor spoke about the importance of this event to Vietnamese-Americans and the community in Westminster.
Nancy Bui: spoke on what she’s observed in the Formosa-Vietnam Case
-In April 2016, Formosa dumped chemicals, metals, into Vietnam waters and because of the delay in recognizing the problem, the Vietnamese government took over 3 months to recognize this issue. Two law companies; 800 something victims are to sue he Formosa in Taiwan and the U.S.
This event was held at the University of California, Irvine in-person on campus and over Zoom. "This seminar will focus on harms caused by the operations of Formosa Plastics Corporation in Taiwan, Vietnam and the United States, focusing on coastal communities. Panelists include people who have spent years working to address these harms in different ways." (DisasterSTS). The lead organizers include Tim Schutz and Kim Fortun.
I am wondering how the book's central concept, "landscapes of power," can be used to think about energy and infrastructural projects outside the Navajo context? The four modalities of power that make up this landscape are deeply influenced by your ethnographic data, and throughout the book you emphasize the need to pay attention to the particularities of places and communities. Thus, I would surmise that other landscapes of power would consist of different configurations of modalities of power? If so, how would you advise research into these other landscapes? What would should scholars pay attention to?
What motivated the structure of the book and the use of the interludes in particular? I'd like to learn more about the decision to include them as interludes. What was the idea behind these moments of reflection that both supplement and bring a brief pause to the argument?
How has the book been received among the communities that you work with? What have been the consequences, if any, for those actors and organizations who were featured in your analysis?
I believe one of the most important aspects the book highlights towards the end of Chapter 4, through Chapter, and within the Conclusion is the idea of false environmentalism that emerges from skewed (i.e. false) science reports. Just as much as the business representatives boasting their environmentalism when building the water dam in the Philippines had hired a group of scientists to report the positive effects of carbon emissions (against those of coal), certain energy governance entities focus on similar false science. The book seems to incite a revolution in the way energy is conceptualized and governed as specifically related to the unique psychosocial, social, and traditional attachments populations have to places (Powell, 2018:160; 237; 239). In other words, building energy plants and governing them should not come at the expense of the populations who reside there (i.e. populations should not be relocated).
What recommendations do you have for studying vulnerable populations? What should be the focus and of what should one be careful, specifically?
What would you say makes the Dine and Navajo communities particularly vulnerable to government exploitation by green jobs and what would you say are some appropriate solutions to the foregoing as particularly related to the concept of the 'double whammy’ or the 'double bind'?
How are, do you believe, households vulnerable to policies surrounding transformations of governance in weatherization and construction practices (if known)?
More than suggestions, I believe this text draws great parallels for discussing the interconnectedness of economic investments, energy activism, what Dr. Powell refers to as 'greening capitalism', and the right to pollute (Powell, 2018). Power is taken out of its rightful host and appropriated by larger institutions of colonization, where Indigenous nations work to produce power but don’t have the grid to use that power and are, thus, dependent of agents of capitalism in energy production (Powell, 2018). We can think about a transfusion of power moving from energy systems that exist today, to distributions of grid vulnerabilities, to the discrepancies in energy production within the Navajo nation and against their minimal consumption (Powell, 2018). In a broader outlook of the transfusion of power in energy systems, politics, and land, we can think about the process as compounding health and social vulnerabilities that affect energy and climate justice.
"The complex “double bind” facing movements—at the same time that it faces tribal leadership—who because of colonial logics and legacies, must work both within and against the constraints of the state." (Powell, 2018: 137). This quote is particularly significant because it draws upon the previous accounts of the sovereign powers of the Tribes whilst also accounting for their interdependence on outside entities like the DOE, and other Federal institutions. It evokes the still colonial nature of the ruling entities in the United States and a consequent false sense of independence. This false sense of independence can seemingly be drawn from the disconnected and isolated energy systems present in the Navajo Nation, specifically where Dr. Powell highlights the Nation has lacking adequate access to water, electricity, paved roads and other opportunities (Powell, 2018: 115-116). The foregoing speaks quite directly to many in the Navajo Nation being energy vulnerable and lacking access to reliable utilities, day-to-day necessities, which also bridges the connections between energy vulnerability and energy rights.