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?

This document was drafted and approved by the 111th US Congress

The film provided general facts about MSF and the conditions in Lieria and the Congo, but no detailed medical statisitics. There wasn't any comparison of the issues in this mission versus those on other missions. The film could have included more on the factors that contribute to the diseases themselves, rather than the barriers to treating them. The film also needed more on the exact amounts of supplies that were given relative to what one would have in a clinic elsewhere. 

In the aftermath of the hurricane, numerous issues arose for the evacuated citizens of New Orleans.First, the immediate affects of lack of access were apparent, such as lack of schooling, pharmacies, and employment. Then psychological affects appeared as people were told they couldn't return home, even if they were minimally damaged. The combined affects of the physical and mental conditions, combined with the lack of physicians and psychiatrists, led to a massive instability in the people. 

The government further exacerbated this instability by providing limited resources and shelter for victims. More exactly, the resources and shelter were unevenly distributed to the victims, favoring white mid- to upper-class citizens. The funds that otherwise should have gone to essential care facilities and housing, were unseen by the people. Promises of finanicial aid were never fulfilled, and no legislation (such as that in the wake of 9/11) was passed to support victims.

This leads to the creation of "disaster capitalsim" in which private companies benefit from the disaster and state-of-emergency, raising prices and suspending insurance policies. Poor government oversight of the private sector created deficiencies and health crises. 

The article concludes by suggesting the response to Katrina be examined to prevent the same mistakes from occuring in the future. However, there is a lack of optimism, as the system of response is ingrained into American Society. 

The article explores the effects of society, politics, and science on the diagnosis/treatment of medical conditions in the wake of Chernobyl's nuclear disaster. The article looks into the complex development of a system of compensation and benefits for victims of the disaster, and how people became dependent on the system for their basic needs.