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?

How did it happen (complete failure of cooling and reactors exploding)?

                Although the earthquakes killed workers and wreaked havoc on the region, Japans’ nuclear plants were not compromised by the quakes. It was only the tsunami that caused Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, & 3’s power and backup power to fail, allowing the meltdown to take place. (world-nuclearworld-nuclear.org)

Why was radioactive water released (purposely) into the ocean as stated in the article?

                I found that although radioactive water was never “purposely” released into the ocean, it was known that it would likely end up there due to the failed ocean barrier wall. The water came from the necessity of cooling the overheated plants to prevent further meltdown and further contamination. The good news is that by 2012 the water within the Fukushima area was considered non-toxic to humans and aquatic species that live there. However, less is known about the effects on the ocean floor, where the radioactive matter is collecting in the sediment. (cnn.com)

What (if anything) has been done to further an international response team/plan for nuclear emergencies?

While my research turned up little results for international response development, countries have been developing their own response teams. China will have a national nuclear response team by the end of 2018 which will be made up of over 300 individuals and will meet the requirements for an international response team. This makes sense since China has more nuclear power plants than any other country in the world and expects to double its nuclear output over the next few decades. (firedirect.net) 

Dr. Byron Good is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard University. “Dr. Good’s present work focuses on research and mental health services development in Asian societies, particularly Indonesia. He has been a frequent visiting professor in the Faculty of Medicine, Gadjah Mada University, in Jogyakarta, Indonesia. He has conducted research with colleagues there on the early phases of psychotic illness for more than 10 years, and is co-director of the International Pilot Study of the Onset of Psychosis (IPSOS)” (Harvard bio).

This article draws mainly from Partners In Health projects in Rwanda and Haiti, using them as case studies to support their argument.