Search

In their introduction, Vermeylen's argument for a particularist and decolonial approach to justice through a recognition of plural ontologies and epistemologies that decenters Western liberal discourse and its theory of justice. How does bringing the lens of coloniality into environmental justice literature alter our visions of energy futures? Can we make appeals to environmental justice without recourse to liberal theories of individual rights and property ownership? More specifically, I am wondering how our team can study and address this dynamic plurality of ways of understanding and experiencing in/justice in this site, and how can we engage this plurality in productive ways? What axes of difference and inequality should we be looking for/at (race, gender, class, sexual orientation, citizenship, housing status, etc)? If the Anthropocene is coloniality by another name, how can we foreground this in our approach?

The authors productively place three bodies of theory in conversation, abolitionist theories, urban political ecology, and decolonial theory, to rewrite the intellectual trajectories of EJ as extending the legacy of the Black Radical Tradition. What are our intellectual and political genealogies as students and researchers of the quotidian anthropocene? What genealogies are we pushing against? Drawing from their examples of spaces and historical moments of interracial solidarity, what kinds of coalitions do we see ourselves partnering with and contributing to as (largely?) newcomers to the activism in Austin?

In this fascinating review, the authors show how environmental justice is reproductive justice (following the water protectors at Standing Rock) and how this intersection reshapes understandings of the environment, embodiment, and exposure. I was particularly interested in the concepts of social and cultural re/production, and how we might think about this in light of Austin's rapid gentrification. They discuss an intersectional approach as a multi-scalar approach, from climate change to chemical exposure in the home - and I think this could be extended to a inter/multi-generational approach to justice (esp given our focus on renewables). The authors show how the RJ framework rethinks the individualism of reproductive choice as the right to conceive and bear children in conditions of social justice and human flourishing - then how does the current energy system (and future energy transitions) negate or create these conditions, and for whom? If we think about biological/cultural reproduction, how do we also incorporate the concept of reproductive labor into our analysis? Finally, I think they make an important point about the harms of documentation, and it would be great to hear everyone's thoughts (Esp those who have participated in earlier field campuses) on what the goal and ethics of our knowledge production are?

Walsh's piece gives us a concise history and geography of environmental racism in Austin, by drawing our attention to how ineequality is written into city law and urban planning. The ongoing legacies of segregation have shaped social life from access to public services to access to recreational spaces. Given the foundations of environmental racism in zoning laws and land use regulations, so succinctly highlighted by Walsh, how does/must the process of energy transition address these issues? Can there be zoning for justice, and what would that look like? In what way can our work at the field campus contribute to the existing work being done by orgs like El Pueblo and PODER?

The argument that health infrastructure was imperative in the prevention of outbreaks was very compelling. The first half of the film, while the virus was just beginning to spread emphasized that initially the hospitals were overwhelmed and forced to close because the resources and personnel needed were not available and no system was in place to deal with the number of cases. This supported the ending argument that Liberia needed more trained medical professionals, better infrastructure, and more health education.

The article has been referenced a few times since it was published, however the recent publication, lack of research being done on this topic, or the lack of definitive results from this paper have prevented it from being referenced extensively.

I looked into Underwriter Laboratories, as the work that they do is both interesting and important in mitigating future disasters.

The article did not give a definitive answer as to the decided cause of the towers collapse, so I researched the prominent theories. There still exists some controversy on the subject but it is largely believed that a combination of the direction the plane faced upon impact, which allowed the keel beam to destroy several support columns of the building, and the heat form the fire causing thermal expansion of the remaining steel reinforcements, overtaxed the supports which led to a systematic failure of supports on each lower floor.

Finally, I looked at the legal changes after 9/11 to see if there were any laws put into place defining the responsibility and authority of government agencies in the aftermath of a disaster. The laws passed directly in response to 9/11 however only seem to be relating to search, seizure, and detention of suspected terrorists.