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 focused on treatment and prevention of diseases affecting communities, however I was interested in the initial causes of these epidemics in places that were originally free of disease. I read an article “The Tipping Point” published in the New York Times that explained multiple social theories as to how epidemics begin, using Baltimore as a case study.

I looked into the stated mission and some of the work done by the Partners in Health, as they are a group that responds to epidemics. It was interesting to see that they focus not on immediate emergency response but instead on creating lasting infrastructure to gradually stop epidemics, as well as educating locals on how to react to future emergencies of the same nature.

The article mentions that clinicians are not trained to see social issues as they are so commonplace in everyday life as to become invisible, I felt that was a limited mindset and read an article written by Doctors for America. The article showed that while it is true that comparatively little time is spent on social issues during a doctor’s education, clinicians dealing directly with patients clearly recognize social conditions effecting health. The article suggests that the lack of attention on those issues in the medical field is not due to ignorance but rather the lack of an existing system through which individual doctors can report their experiences and work towards a solution.

Emergency response is addressed in terms of post-incident humanitarian aid, dealing with how to identify and help victims of sexual violence without politicizing their situations to the point of forcing them to relive their trauma or making them feel separated from other people receiving aid.

The article referenced many other papers that focus on the modern health threats due to scientific advancement, the spread of disease in modern society, and on the current approach to health prevention and the response to epidemics. This suggests that the paper was a culmination of ideas that did not include new research or data.

There are seven authors on this project, all of whom are connected to research institutes or universities. The project was primarily written by individuals associated with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which has a good reputation.