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 article centers on how social and political factors effected access to care for citizens in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Additionally, the author discusses how "at-risk" populations emerge; far too often, these populations are only noted after a disaster occurs, and are often ignored until that point. This creates a dependence on healthcare and illness for these populations, something that can be highly effected based on economic and social status. The author also discusses how technologies and government involvement dictated the situation post-disaster, and includes extensive information from resettled families and workers exposed to radiation

The bibliography is not included in the PDF uploaded, most likely because this a chapter excerpt from a larger work. However, there are several citations within the article, most of which are elaborated on. These descriptions indicate the works follow similar lines of thought and provide similar information to supplement Dr. Good's assertions. This includes his description of Dr. Evelyn A. Early's works (discussed earlier--ha), and several other prominent medical anthropologists. 

1) MSF policy on neutrality: One of the main aspects of humanitarian aid is to remain removed in the conflict at hand, thus assuring unbiased help towards all individuals involved. This comes from neutrality, a tenant stating that MSF and other humanitarian agencies working under MSF will not "pick" or join one side of the conflict nor will they grant a side an advantage. 

2)MSF operations head arrest: At the time of the Sudanese conflict, the Dutch branch of MSF released a report decrying the severe sexual violence perpetrated during fighting. This, in turn, led to the imprisonment and charging of MSF head of mission, Paul Foreman. The MSF report was read in the 2005 Annual International General Assembly, entailing the ongoing violence against women in the Darfur conflict in an attempt to raise awareness about the continued issue. 

3) Darfur Conflict: An major armed conflict started in 2003 with the rebellion of several liberation movements (SLM & JEM) against the Sudanese government. The violence reached a cease fire in 2010 where talks began, propagated by Doha mediators, but an agreement was never met. Thus, violence has continued through 2016, including a chemical weapon attack in September.