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 main public health issue mentioned in this article is the cholera epidemic that was caused by UN Nepalese workers, and the lack of accountability by the UN. The article discusses how the UN is "immune" to a court's decision, despite its obvious injustice for Haiti. In spite of the distrust by world leaders and NGOs on the Haitain government to handle a trust fund meant to help its citizens, the money that has gone directly to them has been used to increase childhood vaccination and save HIV patients. This shows their ability to manage funds and the issues that arise when allowing people overseas to handle the money meant for efforts in Haiti. 

1. MSF
2. Policies about gender based violence 
3. rape rates aroudn the world

The most compelling part of the film for me was the woman yelling at the side of the road about a pregnant woman that was sick and left behind by emergency responders that did not have the authority or equipment to handle the ebola patient. The fetus was still alive and moving, however, the ebola team came too late and the baby died along with its mother. This was compelling because it showed her dead on the side of the road and the woman screaming watched it happen. The baby could have been saved, but the understaffed ebola team could not get there in time. 

Policy makers, mostly. People who are privileged and can go to private doctors or hospitals don't often see the issues that public hospitals face. Policy makers who don't see this as a problem would benefit from seeing this documentary. But I think that everyone can learn smething from this documentary. For future doctors it can show patient care and bed-side manners. For a regular person it can show the need for insurance so that they can push local policy makers to make a change.