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 dicusses how the UN has caused major health issues but is not being held accountable by the court's decision, so that is a clear injustice for Haiti. Additionally, the only money that goes directly to Haitians to spend in the recovery has been spent on helping increase children's immunizations rates and increase HIV medical treatment, so they have shown some ability to help themselves when given the resources.

There clearly need to be some policy changes in the healthcare system. I think Obamacare is not the answer and is way too much policy and not enough sense, but we need something. People need affordable coverage for the issues that make sense for their gender and age bracket, they need to be given more help when they are trying to work, and there needs to be more incentive to become a doctor so that there are more PCPs out there nipping a lot of these issues in the bud. So the ER is for emergencies and is a less stressful, long-wait, ridiculous situation.

They researched a lot into tuberculosis/HIV and the social issues that were discussed. Articles on asthma were also reviewed and used, despite asthma not being directly discussed, as well as lead poisoning. This could indicate that more diseases are affected by social issues than discussed in the article, or maybe those diseases didn't show any correlation.

I looked up how regualtions are formed and put into law after outbreaks of disease to prevent similar outbreaks from happening again. I also looked into how viruses become resistant to drugs and are able to mutate and continue to infect people, even after they have been "controlled". Additionally, I found a list of the safety measures that are recommended for emergency responders based on CDC guidelines.