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 was a retrospective study. While not the most accurate and well supported way to conduct a study, due to the effects of recall bias, it was really the only way to gain the data that was presented in the report. There isn't really anything new about the style of research. 

The policy definitely provides a good amount of suport for a large amount of people affected. However, certain populations are left out of this. The large number of transiet persons, as well as non-resident people, in New York City is enourmous. These people were surely affected by the attacks, but are not included in the policy. This is, of course, understandable, as tracking the presence of these people's is nearly impossible nearly 10 years after the attacks. Regardless, it is a flaw in the policy. 

I was unable to find the number of currently active field missions for MSF, but I found information on the process of working for MSF. Each year they send about 2500 international aid workers (not just doctors) to many countries. These people are put alongside locally hired medical personnel to complete the missions. The process for becoming a volunteer is a bit long, with lots of requirements. Candidates need experience in their discipline, experience in management/ teaching, language skills, and previous experience in a humanitarian environment. From the film, it didn't seem that all the doctors had this experience, namely Davinder. MSF also likes that candidates have profficieny in French.

While looking at the FAQs on the US website, I found an interesting portion regarding care facilities and missions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. The MSF has a section defending their care in that area, but it is posed in the form of questions like "Why are you taking sides? You seem biased" or "Why are you getting involved in this but choose to stay neutral in other conflicts around the world?" It just strikes me as strangely unprofessional to have it phrased that way. The answers also seem very defensive in a reactionary manner. I just honestly thought it could have been phrased better or not included at all. It is information that maybe a few people might find useful, but would be better placed in a press release or answered by a recruiter.

I also learned that, interestingly enough, 90 percent of the medical professionals are local rather than international. They are trained by the international staff so as to provide a continuity of care. The film didn't really portray that fact, and made it seem like the clinic would have nearly no staff once the international doctors left.

They interviewed and used outside interviews of the people affected by the disaster. They also used other articles, research, and media to support the story and their beliefs.