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?

-“…since the era in which demand for foreign labor made immigration a social necessity seem so remote, the immigrant’s body was entirely legitimized through its function as an instrument of production, the performance of which was interrupted by illness or accident.” – Succinctly captures modern views of illness of foreigners.

-Unless his presence constitutes a threat to public order, any foreigner habitually resident in France whose health is such that he requires medical treatment the lack of which could lead to exceptionally serious consequences, and provided that he is effectively unable to receive appropriate treatment in his country of origin, will be granted a temporary residence permit validated ‘for private and family life.’” Ordinance of November 2, 1945; modified on May 11, 1998 to bring into line with the European Convention of Human Rights

-“Should we accept ‘getting our hands dirty’ by agreeing to work with the immigrants’ service of the prefect’s office on the difficult issue of deportations?” asked Charles Candillier, a medical officer in the Seine-Saint-Denis Directorate of Healthy and Social Welfare, in an internal memo. His answer is crystal clear: “Although we recognize the ethical ambiguities of the situation, we did agree, on the grounds that our intervention could only be beneficial in helping to prevent arbitrary explusions.”

It creates a history and a better undestanding of the events that affected so many people on the East coast. It also compares the two storms to exhibit in both cases there were things we could have done better.

Firstly, the bibliography is incrediable thorough and comprehensive. There appears to have been a great deal of research into many aspects of the disaster by these researchers. There were a lot of news articles referenced within the bibliography to captures real events that happened in order to apply those to the greater concept. There were also many anthrological and sociological articles on disasters and their effects within the bibliography, which had been referenced frequently too,

Vulnerable populations for mental health issues seem to be covered by pay exclusion. Those younger than 21 or 22 are included, which appear to be the most at-risk for mental illness.