Skip to main content

Analyze

What do you want to learn more about? How could you follow up?

bmvuong

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. 

What ideas about governance, community engagement, and civic responsibility filtered through this event?

bmvuong

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."

What is said at this event, by whom, and for what apparent purpose? How did others respond?

bmvuong

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". 

Who is present and what is noteworthy about their self-presentations and interactions?

bmvuong

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.

 

What is the setting and purpose of this event, and who organized it?

bmvuong

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.

Education Restructuring in Disasters

prerna_srigyan

Act 35, United Teachers of New Orleans, white flight and school integration, DEI and racialization; will be important to conceptualize overall linking of education to political economy. Further, the text produces many questions for me: How do reforms become spaces for racecraft? How might education restructuring in NOLA provide insight to education restructuring post- and during disaster? How does it help questioning the normative and the prescriptive? 

Further, in interviews of new hires of charter schools, Tompkins reveals how they are ambivalent about what they can do and about their positionalities and ethics, arguing that it leads to atomization and desocialization of the individual, and that prevents collective action. How can ambivalence be interpreted as a space for collective potential rather than collective paralysis? Can it be interpreted as such? Since action does not follow knowledge of contradictions and ambivalence, how can this subjectivity be articulated as politically productive?

 

pece_annotation_1524611869

AlvaroGimeno

First of all I would like to highlight the first source used in the new. The map with the risk on air polution in Newark.

Now I'll point out the two qutes suggested:

"Air quality was analyzed using proximity to 5 factors: major roads, truck routes, rail lines, Newark airport are all nonpoint sources and facilities that have violated their major permit at least once within the last 3 years are point sources. Point sources were buffered 1 miles for the area of high risk, and 1.5 miles for the area of elevated risk."

(at the begging of the last paragraph)

"This project is an attempt to identify those areas of high risk and the people being affected by poor air quality. It can be used to inform the public about their risk and to influence policy makers and developers."

(the fourth paragraph)

pece_annotation_1525744772

neemapatel128

In an industrial city like Newark, although prevention of air pollution is hard, but control can be in our hands. By identifying the areas with the higher risks and also the people being affected by the poor air quailty, we can further give the community more clear information regarding the risks and also in turn influencing policy makers and the stakeholders of the community. Being correctly informed on the topic not only helps the community members, but also the people in charge of making decisions for their communities, making this a better way to work together to build a healthier ans safer community in areas like these. 

pece_annotation_1525799490

neemapatel128

Yes, individual communities should determine the air quality standards for their areas because each area would have a different standard. For example the Newark area air quality standard would be much lower then the other tri-state areas of New Jersey. If Newark's air quality was measured with standards that are kept for the whole state then the results would be much lower and wouldn't be right to compare the two. Having different standards per each area helps in diffrentiating between each one.