Analyze

As the title of the work hints to, the text builds on discussions surrounding energy policy and energy investments. Throughout the work, Boyer (2019) discusses dimensions of energy transitions that range from job creation, forms of development (industry and otherwise). Most significant to take into consideration is the fact Boyer (2019) acknowledges energy development often occurs without at par social, political, and economic transitions. Boyer (2019) advances discussions of energy politics and transitions by highlighting the inherent problems energy transitions bring into communities where wind farm and green projects are envisioned. Here, we should note the impacts energy transitions may have on the most vulnerable populations, which have been and continue to be documented. In fact, it is documented that LMI communities tend to be least likely to sport energy-efficient, carbon neutral energy systems and appliances (Cluett et al., 2016; Elnakat, 2016; Kaza et al., 2014).

This text is particularly exemplary in documenting local community antagonism to energy transitions as it recognizes small-scale intrusions green energy may introduce. This varies from loss of agricultural planes to loss of fishing potential, as noises created by aeolian energy production can disrupt wildlife and their habitats. It is important to consider details like these in what can be considered microcosms of life. However, the text does not widely address how to move past these intrustions. Questions that still linger are: How can the introduction of green (aeolian and other) energy avoid damaging such microcosms? How can energy prices be made accessible to everyone thanks to the introduction of green energy instead of being used as an excuse to increase energy prices? What understandings are green energy investors missing to carry forward beneficial green energy projects? And, a question that the author asks from the beginning: How can the introduction of green energy benefit those communities in which projects are carried out?

This text historically traces the exploitative nature of energy supplies and charges (costs). Impactful statistics to consider in Oaxaca are that energy users pay for usage of one-hundred water plants when only twenty are operational but even more drastic is the fact energy companies overcharge residential customers to undercharge commercial customers (Boyer, 2019:100, 133). Here, we can think of COVID-19 parallels where nationwide job loss has burdened families' abilities to cope with utility bill payments. Companies have been pushing for cost/usage increases in residential sectors due to burdens experienced whilst contemporarily reducing cost/usage in commercial sectors. However, if burden experienced by residential customers is ignored, many will likely ask for subsidy payments, as CFE's customer base (98% of customers receive 70% off on their energy costs) (Boyer, 2019:152). The pre-COVID-19 burdens in Oaxaca have likely worsened since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which should inform or at least direct wider discussions of energy rights as situated both within and outside a pandemic. More than informing understandings of COVID-19-situated conditions, this text provides us with the grounds to investigate pre-pandemic burdens and to discuss vulnerabilities to energy losses or scarcity, but also of the needs and willngness to promote efficiency, net-zero emissions, or even carbon neutral energy.

Like many other systems, energy systems are grounded in gender, race, and social hierarchies. Similarly, we can think of energy infrastructures today as continuing racist, gendered, and classist systems, particularly when we think of the energy vulnerbale populations that are particularly affected by the pandemic. Just as Dr. Daggett suggests, we need new energy systems to move away from energy wastes, energy inequality but also energy systems to account for compouded vulnerabilities as faced by the most at risk populations.

As we think of the COVID-19 and energy shifts due to closure for social distancing aims, we can think of Dr. Daggett's argument of energy systems modeled for energy intensive and productive labor. In a sense, despite COVID-19 shifting energy consumption to the residential area, we can argue COVID-19 has also led to an overall reduction in energy use for industrial sectors. However, these reduced expenditures are not as significant as energy analysts had anticipated and, instead, call to Dr. Daggett's discussions of energy governing labor and hierarchies, as developed in a 19th century world. We can think of ways in which our systems (socioeconomic and political) have become wholly dependent on energy production and, thus, even our leisure activities will inevitably lead to the consumption of energy. Our COVID-19 energy paradigms demonstrate energy is so engrained into our regimes, even social distancing measures cannot wholly reduce overall energy expendatures, despite best efforts. In a way, we should try to understand energy paradigms in Dr. Daggett's eyes as specifically situated in the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the text discusses the birth and transitions of energy paradigms, providing timelines of how we have understood energy throughout the centuries, we are left with little in the way of how to move away from existing energy regimes (Daggett, 2019). That said, the text discusses work as a social convention rooted in energy definitions (Daggett, 2019:197). In other words, Dr. Daggett conceptualizes work relations in terms of energy, with productivity and efficiency concepts emerging from energy definitions, providing examples of how we, as a society, have moved from labor intensive work to abstract (still intensive) work to maximize capital. All of the foregoing discussions rely on concepts of energy, drawing connections between the nature of work and the expenditure of energy to discuss how energy-intensive economies have been created. However, while Dr. Daggett brings to light issues with the current energy networks we are frustatingly left with little ideas on how to tackle energy intensive environments. Frustatingly, with little suggestions on how to address energy-intensive labor markets the book simply provides us with a historical and more analytical discussion of how our labor systems have come to be.

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).

1. What recommendations do you have for studying vulnerable populations? What should be the focus and of what should one be careful, specifically?

2. 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'? 

3. 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.