Analyze

The documentary is missing because the documentary is as safe as the fence it mocks in its title.
In the beginning we are asked to bear witness to the construction and use of the most devastation weapon of indiscriminate death the world has ever seen, and all the harm the construction of such a tool, yet its construction and its use is justified near instantaneously by repeating the same old propaganda.
In continuation, we are asked to bear witness to the continuous production of similar weapons and the devastation caused by the mishandling of the waste that accumulated in their production, yet why such a production took place is not only left unquestioned, but simple hints of cold war propaganda is left in their places for safekeeping.
In the end, we are asked to bear witness to a sombre victory, same spectres of patriotism and nation-of-God watching over our shoulder, yet how the pitiful situation of being forced to celebrate even such a small victory is never explored.
To sum up, we are shown people, good people, who struggle against the symptoms of a disease, yet this disease itself never named, nor challenged. It could not have been challenged, as it would force a complete change in their discourse.

If we sincerely would like to critique how the bodies of these workers were made disposable; used, harmed, dislocated and discharged as deemed necessary; if we wish to explore this topic as the necropolitical issue it is, we cannot stop halfway through. This inability to stop chasing connections, relationalities wherever it fits our ideology, is not a call for “objectivism”, it’s a call to respect the term of Anthropocene with all its rhizomatic connections.

An investigation of nuclear waste, that does not factor the use of its product, the socio-political effects of said product, and the historical conditions that even led to the possibility of producing it in such ways and such quantities, are of no use for us.  It cannot penetrate the barrier of capitalist realism. If it could, at least a single mention of workers unions would have existed. Instead, it has confessionals by atomic weapons lawyers whose heart goes out to these workers.
An America that refuse to face up to the fact that it is what it is by the great necropolitical project it led for hundreds of years, I struggle to accumulate sympathy for, what I can easily accumulate is rage however, which this documentary is missing..
Wish the documentary would have at least attempted to say something radical, instead of praising these disposable bodies for being patriotic about it. There are lives who never had false fences built as idols for safety, the collective idols of old America, the patriotic nation under God were built upon their broken bodies, what would you ask of them?

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.

As outlined in this brief article by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, energy consumption by New York City alone has dropped significantly more than the surrounding areas. On a prima-facie observation, one could say the foregoing alleviates stress on the existing energy infrastructures. However, deeper analyses should consider the repercussions that demanding less energy may have on production, supply, and distribution, as well as transitions between larger and smaller electric microgrids. Given energy infrastructures in the United States are already vulnerable, can it be really said the pandemic alleviates stress on the existing energy infrastructures when everybody is connected to the internet and is generally using more technology at home?

The present report briefly outlines how energy infrastructures have been significantly affected by shifts in consumptions as a result of instituted lockdowns and shelter-in-place. Overall, the impacts of the pandemic have been stressing present energy infrastructures in a way that is unprecedented. Energy patterns have decreased, as far as commercial emissions are concerned, and have worked to highlight the already stressed and vulnerable electricity infrastructures. The foregoing calls attention to the need for measures of economic recovery in the energy field, a move to "electricity secure and resilient energy systems" (IEA, 2020).

More than economic activities, this artifact focus on the economic inactivity that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused. More specifically, such a reduced economic activity has reshaped the oil and gas industries, to the point their prices have significantly dropped. More specifically, these impacts can be better seen in energy system's production and distribution chains, where lockdowns and pandemic mitigation practices have sized down the worker-power both on the demand and the production end. The foregoing is reshaping production, supplies, demand, as well as financials. The crisis has risen several major crises, with industries severely unprepared in their contingency planning given world-wide lockdowns have been unprecedented. All of the factors listed are working to reshape how many in the energy sectors view contingency planning for the future and how they plan to re-establish operations, including cutting some operating costs.