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?

Three ways the article is supported is through first hand accounts of diverse residents that have lived in New Orleans- their opinions of how the rebuild process is progressing as well as the lack of a connection between need and aid from the government. The interviews also provide an emotional perspective into the lives of those who experienced the disaster. The article includes direct quotes from federal disaster efforts such as FEMA and HOME, who provided statistics into how many people received trailer homes and money to rebuild their lives. Another way this article was supported was using records of mail, who had lived in New Orleans before the hurricane and after. This evidence provides an insight into how many people were actually homeless because they had no way of getting federal aid.

The system was built to serve those who cannot afford mental health care and to those who are not educated on mental health disorders. This system was built was reduce problems such as: senseless violence, broken families, lost productivity, and costly physical illness from mental disorders- the app can help these issues over time. To ultimately build healthier communities, workplaces, homes, personal relationships, preventing these in future generations.

The methods/data used to produce the arguments in the report include general statements about mental health disorders followed by stats and explanations that support the stat and/or deny the increase of mental health illness (those that have been reported). The paper is chunked into portions that explain an illness, a coping mechanism and factors that produce higher rates of mental illness.

Three ways the arguemtn is supported is through interviews of current citizens in Ukraine who needed disability funds, the history of CHernobyl and the aftermath on the country as a whole, and field research about radiation and the 'new population' in the country that is made up of those who are radiation affected or are lying about it. (Numbers and figures are also included).