Analyze

Given the vastness of Formosa Plastics' influence, there are many ways to tell its story to the world. As environmental justice activists and researchers, how do we describe a company and its negative impact when there is so much to say? Limited by time, word count, and the audience's attention span, we must decide what goes unsaid. As a result, we could write countless answers to the same question, "What is Formosa Plastics?"

In this published academic case study, I introduce Formosa Plastics through a local lens--specifically, through the eyes of a grandmother-turned-activist in the small town of Welcome, Louisiana. Her family's history with social justice activism, as well as the area's connection to centuries of slavery, make the environmental racism of Formosa Plastics' Sunshine Project especially salient. Although Formosa Plastics is a global force, telling its story on the microscale is an equally important perspective. After all, in Sharon Lavigne's eyes, her small town is her world. How many of these little worlds have Formosa Plastics destroyed as they wreak havoc across international borders?

1. Long-term threats, legacy of mining
- Unstable old salt mines below Stassfurt that have to be monitored and water flows have to be management to prevent ground movement
- so far, more than 800 buildings, including an 500-year old church had to be demolished. Currently, ground movement is under control
- 27 waste heaps and contaminted sites within the city that contain many very hazadous chemical compunds. They were never properly cleaned up

2. Long-term threats, ongoing causes
- by-products of salt mining and refining are collected in large landfills that leak salt into sorrounding areas. There are no plans how these landfills can be remediated, they have to be mananged indenfinitely
- soil erosion of arable land around the city by high intensity farming of crops for livestock production and bioenergy
- toxic waste produced by waste incarceration plant is pumped into former salt mining caves where it solidifies and becomes impossible to recover

3. Short term threats
- explosion in bionenergy plant in 2020
- leakage of ammonia at public street in 2014
- pollution of river bode with ammonia and chloride by CHIECH Soda, massive fish kills every summer
- air pollution, cause unknown, probably mostly by metalworks industry

Staßfurt is a small city in the East German Bundesland Saxony-Anhalt with about 24 thousand inhabitants. Like many cities and villages in the area, it faces huge demographic problems: The population is shrinking rapidly, consists mostly of older people, unemployment is high, percentage of highly educated people is low. The city has a long history of salt mining that goes back to the 13th century. Many inhabitants proudly refer to Staßfurt as the "Cradle of potash-mining" ("Wiege des Kalibergbaus"). Unfilled salt mining shafts that were flooded by groundwater had to be abandoned and started to cave in. Over 800 buildings in the city center had to be demolished because of instabilities, among them a 500-year old church. Nevertheless, salt mining and a metallic industry that developed alongside it is still the largest economic sector in Staßfurt. The city is still permeated by an old mining culture that becomes visible in traditional festivals, clubs (Bergmannsverein e.V. Staßfurt) and the playing of traditional miner's song on offical occasions (Steigerlied).

I think the field campus was a great success and showed how it differs from or compliments traditional formats (conferences, workshops, lectures...). The schedule was deliberately intense, but I am glad we could keep up a good pace throughout the three days. However, I agree that shared time to reflect on what we saw and heard each would have been helpful. A lot of this happened in the cars and at the two accommodations, but more collective time would be great for a future campus. On our way back, we discussed several ways to structure such discussions, for example by picking up one of the twelve analytic questions or making an inventory of (types of) people we encountered in the field. I am also interested in what people with experience in doing ethnography thought about showing up at sites in a group vs. being the lone fieldworker, and how that shifted the way you asked questions or interacted with the sites.

In that regard, I found it particularly helpful to meet participants in advance during the Zoom calls and learn about their skills/interests.  The group interview with Tony West was also a great way to prepare not only for the first day but to get a sense of St. Louis as a place. We should definitely think about similar modes to prepare for New Orleans. Also, since I was involved with setting up the final exhibition a GCADD, I am looking forward to discussing more what the exhibit at 4S could look like and what those of you with a background in the arts think about it.

I am working on a digital collection for the quotidian anthropocene theme "civic infrastructure". I am especially interested in free software, open data, digital maps, and other related forms of participation that are either a direct response to the anthropocene or help to render it visible in different ways.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/tim-schutz

I will develop a digital presentation of Philadelphia quotidian anthropence and on the theme of climate change adaptation. I will be using this analytic, "Profiling a Climate Policy", which I've created to assess urban adaptation plans. I'll provide more details by next Wednesday April 3rd.

http://disaster-sts-network.org/users/alison-kenner

http://disaster-sts-network.org/user

For me personally, I think the campus was a valuable exercise in learning to think on my feet. Also, if one of the goals of the field campus was to “generate more data than the investigator is aware of at the time of collection,” as Marilyn Strathern has said of ethnography, I’d call it an assured success. The schedule, subject matter, and activities were notably intense, and certainly didn’t leave much room (or energy) for rigorous analysis in situ. So it seems to me that the ultimate value of the field campus is still in the process of production, as we all continue to process, discuss, and relate the significance of our experiences and interactions to our own research sites and areas of expertise over the course of the following months.

Perhaps this was simply a matter of being fresh energized, but I think Day 1 was the most productive and enjoyable. I also think this had to do with the way it was structured; e.g. beginning with Tony's primer, folllowed by the tours, and finally the panel discussion, the day just built up nicely. It also gave us an approachable sampling of the ways a coherent set of anthropocenic sites and practices had been differentially uncovered, recovered, or (more or less figuratively) covered up by diverse stakeholders. And we were given time to critically (if also (mostly) cordially) engage each set of stakeholders as a group, bringing in our own unique insights, questions, and interests.

I really enjoyed the first day’s higher degree of shared attention and designated time for Q&A and discussion. That’s not to say I think every event should be a group tour. Self-guided exploration is useful too, and I realize that part of the idea of splitting up was to facilitate smaller collaborations on diverse group projects. Still, perhaps setting aside a few sessions for group-wide Q&A with stakeholders each day would create that small bit of noise and contingency that helps generate creativity.