Analyze

What the GAO nuclear waste map does NOT show

danapowell
Annotation of
In response to

This map is a fascinating and important image as it does NOT show the many sites of (ongoing) nuclear radiation contamination in communities impacted by uranium extraction and processing. For example, the Navajo Nation has around 270 unreclaimed open pit tailings piles. This is not official "waste" but is quotidian waste that creates longstanding environmental harm.

This image hides vulnerable actors, historical dispossession, and organized resistance

danapowell
In response to

This image hides many things, including:

1. the slow but steady dispossession of smallholder (often African-American) farms that have been overtaken/bought out by Smithfield Foods to enlarge the industrial footprint of CAFOs;

2. the hogs themselves, whose hooves never touch the ground as they stand on "hog slats" inside the hangers as they move through the Fordist stages of transformation from individual animals into packaged pork;

3. the human operators, themselves, who are rarely wealthy, and are contracted for decades (or life) to purchase all "inputs" (feed, semen, etc) from Smithfield; in 2010, I took my EJ class from UNC-Chapel Hill to visit one of these operators at his CAFO, outside Raleigh, NC, and he was battling Smithfield and Duke Energy to be allowed to erect and operate a small-scale, experimental wind turbine that ran on methane captured from his pigs; years later, individual efforts at small-scale biogas would be overtaken by entities like Align LNG which now, in Sampson County, proposes the "Grady Road Project" to scale-up factory-farmed methane gas capture from much larger operations;

4. the legacy of resistance to this form of agricultural production, led by community-based intellectuals like Gary Grant, who as early as the 1980s was speaking out, traveling to state and federal lawmakers, publishing, and organizing against the growing harms of CAFOs in his home territory of Halifax County, NC. [See the suggested readings by Gary Grant and Steve Wing, Naeema Muhammed and others, that tracks this organized resistance and the formation of several community-based EJ groups in response].

Historical and Spatial Analytics for widening the "scope" of hazards

danapowell
In response to

The Sampson County landfill can be smelled before seen. This olfactory indicator points toward the sensory scale of these pungent emissions but also toward the geographic scope: this landfill receives waste from as far away as Orange County (the state's most expensive property/tax base), among dozens of other distant counties, making this "hazardous site" a lesson in realizing impact beyond the immediate locale. So when we answer the question, "What is this hazard?" we must think not only about the landfill as a thing in itself but as a set of economic and political relations of capital and the transit of other peoples' trash, into this lower-income, rural, predominantly African-American neighborhood. In this way, 'thinking with a landfill' (like this one in Sampson County) enables us to analyze wider sets of relationships, NIMBY-ist policymaking, consumerism, waste management, and the racialized spatial politics that enable Sampson County to be the recipient of trash from all over the state. At the same time we think spatially and in transit, we can think historically to (a) inquire about the DEQ policies that enable this kind of waste management system; and (b) the emergent "solutions" in the green energy sector that propose to capture the landfill's methane in order to render the stench productive for the future -- that is, to enable more consumption, by turning garbage into gas. As such, the idea of "hazard" can expand beyond the site itself - impactful and affective as that site might be - to examine the uneven relations of exchange and capitalist-driven values of productivity that further entrench infrastructures such as these. [This offers a conceptual corrollary to thinking, as well, about the entrenchment of CAFOs for "green" biogas development, as we address elsewhere in the platform].

9. What does this organization seem to find methodologically challenging in dealing with environmental governance?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

While the organization was founded by Taiwan's citizens to uphold environmental justice movements centered on Taiwanese citizens, its involvement in Vietnam's Formosa case signals that the organization itself may be broadening their scope in future endeavors. In leveraging its resources to seek redress for victims outside of Taiwan, ERF may need to extend their networks to international agencies as well as engage with communities not directly reachable to its workers. As Vietnam's Formosa case also concerns dealings with an authoritarian government, restrictions on speech, police brutality, and censureship on the part of Vietnam's government may render it difficult for ERF and affiliated agencies to obtain all relevant information pertaining to the case.

7. What events or data seem to have motivated their ways of thinking about environmental governance?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

Environmental Rights Foundation (ERF)  was founded due to the result of the court settlement regarding the lawsuit on the 3rd phase expansion of Central Taiwan Science Park (CTSP) between farmers and the government. As such, the organization’s focus remains centered on ensuring community members' environmental rights across different government development plans.

6. What data or reports has this organization produced or or used to support their approach to community engagement?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

https://erf.org.tw/news/ 


ERF has published over 150 press releases documenting their engagement communities in seeking government actions to address environmental disasters. These press releases include up-to-date news on each relevant environmental justice case the agency is currently working on. One example of a recent press release includes information issued by the Formosa Plastics Vietnam Steel Alliance, which consists of six non-governmental organizations supervising the case. Statements issued within this press release comes from members of Amnesty International Taiwan, Reporters  without Borderes, Environmental Lawyer's Association, and the Environmental Rights Protection Foundation. 

4. What other organizations does this organization interact and collaborate with?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

In regards to the Formosa case, ERF has collaborated with the Justice for Formosa Victims (JFFV)- a Vietnamese-American based organization- to coordinate efforts in seeking redress to affected communities.

3. What has this organization done through research or legislation?

annlejan7
Annotation of
In response to

  • Drawn from website,community engagement  activities undertaken by ERF in Taiwan includes:

    • At Reservoir Planning Areas: ERF has organized the International Day of Action for Rivers events on March 14 for two consecutive years in 2018 and 2019. The events aim at drawing the society’s attention on reservoir issues through local concerts or speed-walking events.

    • At Solar Power Planning Areas: ERF has organized with local indigenous people the Tribe Land and Sunshine Workshop so that the local communities know more about solar energy and the practicing of indigenous peoples’ right of consultation and consent and the right of benefit sharing.

    • At So-to-Be-Eliminated Fishing Villages Whose Land is Acquired by the Tourism Industry and Hotels: ERF organizes courses on urban planning procedures and more.

    • Near Factories of the High Technology Industry: ERF organizes courses on communities’ right to know, health risk reports, and more.

  • The organization has also established the following:

  • Citizen Monitoring the Sixth Naphtha Cracker Environmental Rights Promotion Action Platform (Citizen Monitoring the Sixth Naphtha Cracker Platform): The Sixth Naphtha Cracker of Formosa Plastics is the largest petrochemical industrial park in central Taiwan, impacting the local environment and the health of residents greatly. Research has shown that the incidence of cancer is significantly higher in residents living near the petrochemical industrial park. Taixi Village of Changhua even has the name “cancer village”. The platform was co-established by civic organizations and local residents, aiming at urging the government to enhance its capability of environmental governance and conduct adequate environmental monitoring to realize the public’s right to know.

  • Legalization of Unregistered Factories on Agricultural Land: At present, there are over 134,500 unregistered factories on agricultural land in Taiwan, occupying an area of 13,859 hectares. ERF has been working with civic organizations since 2017, organizing legal policy lobbying, urging the government to amend laws and regulations, and publicizing data and information for better policy tracking and judgement. 

  • Judicial Remedies for Transnational Corporation Pollution (Ocean Pollution of Formosa Ha-Tinh Steel Corporation): ERF organized a lawyer group to assist the 7,875 Vietnamese victims. We filed for a civil lawsuit for compensation against the shareholders and board of directors of Formosa Ha-Tinh Steel Corporation, hoping that transnational corporations bear responsibilities of pollution.