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?

EPA is collecting data about the air quality in the ironbound communities. This data is used to find what causes the air pollution and EPA is working to fix the problem and improve the overall health of the communities

Officials are looking to change something like the trucks within the port industry in Newark to counteract air pollution while keeping in mind the jobs of many who can be affected by the changes. The port of New York and New Jersey supplies 270,000 jobs and $36 billion in economic activity for shipping. If the possible changes were implemented, they must make sure that this industry is not impacted negatively because that can hurt the communities connected to the industry.

To help the government with air pollution, people can try to use their cars less. This can be done through walking, biking, or carpooling to their destinations. This will help lessen the usage of fossil fuels that decrease the air quality. Although this may not seem like much, if more and more people begin to do this, eventually the results will begin to show

Air pollution in Newark that is caused by port traffic, waste facilities, industrial plants, and trucks. Some of the air pollution in New Jersey is also caused by air pollution drifting in from Pennsylvania.

One of the possible solutions to air pollution is the truck replacement program where old trucks are being replaced with newer trucks to "curb diesel emissions, and that low-sulfur fuels were making ships’ engines run cleaner." However, this is difficult to implement because it can affect the jobs of many truckers and trucking companies by limiting how many pickups they can make.

Yes and no. Communities should be able to do something about their air quality in their area but within the state's command. For example, states should have a state regulation on air quality and be able to enforce that regulation. However, individual communities should be able to do what they want to meet that state regulation on air quality. With this, communities still have the freedom to do something about their air quality while the state maintains its power