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 IAEA failed to properly prevent the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incidents. After these events the IAEA started two conventions for notification and response to nuclear disasters. Since the Fukushima incident, the IAEA has evolved the way they approach disaster and health to include even the most outlandish scenarios and actively trains first responders how to deal with such occurrences.  (iaea.org)

Emergency response is not addressed in this article. But the information provided could be useful for disaster relief workers operating in evironments like these.

                The object of the study “Epidemics After Natural Disasters” by John T. Watson, Michelle Gayer, and Maire A. Connolly is to dispel common misconceptions about disasters and communicable diseases. Further, the study seeks to identify the real leading causes of diseases after a disaster: population displacement, clean water and facilities availability, the amount of crowding, the baseline health of the population, and the availability of healthcare to mitigate the disease risks to the population.

While most hospitals would provide stabilizing, lifesaving treatment to those that needed it, there were some that did not. This act really helps the good hospitals (the majority of them) that were already doing what this policy made law, but there were enough instances and examples of hospitals that were not, so the legislature acted. It is also important to note that this act was part of a larger bill (COBRA) that dealt with national healthcare and social security policy.