Analyze

Slides 37-55 outline FPG's current carbon capture system in Kaoshiung and its future plans for CCS systems in Mailiao, including an experimental system of biodegradable carbon capture. These initiatives, largely through Formosa Smart Energy Corp. also attempt to use AI models to regulate carbon capture for optimal production. 

See slides 40-42 for new initiatives on carbon capture. They list plans to build deep water carbon capture pits, being sited in Yunlin as of 9.2022.

The carbon capture system they have in place at Nanya seems to have reduced the amount of naptha necessary to manufacture butyl ether, a chemical used in solvents and pesticides, through reinjection of that carbon dioxide into source feedstocks (Enhanced Oil Recovery).

“國際碳捕捉技術發展

依據全球碳捕捉與封存研究所(Global CCS Institute, CCSI)最新發布之「2022年全球碳捕捉與

封存發展現況報告(The Global Status Of CCS 2022)」，⾄2022年全球共有30個⼤型CCS綜合

專案已經營運，其中有22個採⾏強制採油技術(Enhanced oil recovery, EOR)，利⽤⼆氧化碳灌

注⾄快枯竭的油氣⽥，獲取更多殘存油氣，以增加效益，其餘8個專案封存於陸地或海洋深層

鹽⽔層，顯示現階段應⽤仍以EOR技術為主，除可減少碳排外，更可增加獲利。

自動翻譯

 Capture Technology Development

According to the "2022 Global Carbon Capture and Storage Storage Development Status Report“ (The Global Status Of CCS 2022), by 2022 there will be 30 large CCS comprehensive

The projects are already in operation, and 22 of them adopt enhanced oil recovery (EOR), using carbon dioxide irrigation. Inject into the depleted oil and gas to obtain more residual oil and gas to increase efficiency, and the remaining 8 projects are sealed in land or deep ocean

The salt water layer shows that the current application is still dominated by EOR technology, which can not only reduce carbon emissions, but also increase profits.” (Slide 38)

Heavy reliance on technosolutions to reach emission reduction and climate goals. Shift from oil as fuel to oil as material. Cooperation between industry, academic, and technical research organizations to research new carbon capture systems. Longevity of the petrochemical industry within climate politics is a high priority for FPG, but also the efficiency of petrochemical inputs. Climate change action is being pursued, but more so in capture of carbon emitted and repurposed within chemical reactions, as opposed to omitted through reductions in production

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

The main point of the article is that a big name organization (The EPA) is taking steps to help the residents of Newark and the Ironbound Community monitor air pollution. Not only is the EPA donating $150,000 worth of equipment, but they are also training volunteers to monitor and mantain the machines so the EPA and the Ironbound Community can gather the information they need. The machines can also be moved around so multiple locations can be sampled and tested.