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 describes infrastructure as something that needs to be built with a focus on people as well as the environment. This can improve transportation (reduced air pollution in Newark), create a more sustained access to power and energy, increase economic mobility, make communities more resilient, improve health, etc. This company has done work on sustainability projects in regards to infrastructure in Newark, which demonstrates their engagement with sustainable and resilient infrastructure. 

Nearly half of Newark's school's are contaminated with dangerous levels of lead. Or so they were two years ago when this article was published. This relates to infrastructure because we are poisoning poor, primarily black and hispanic communities, whom already have low resilience. Because they live in empowerished neighborhouds, their children go to lower income schools, and when they drink the water provided there, they put themselves at risk of cancer, infertillity, and other results of lead poisoning. If Newark's infrastructure was more balanced between white and black communities, there would not be impoverished areas that have poisonous drinking water at schools, as the water standard in the schools would have been raised to that of higher income communities. 

The incredible amount of awful potholes in Newark called for this report. This report lists all of the streets and the dates that they will be paved in Newark, and it is one fat list. Newark roads are awful. Bad roads=poor infrastructure= weak resilience. If there is a disaster, someone who lives in a poor area may hit a pothole and be completely stranded and die, as a result of the poor infrastructure of our roads in Newark. I once hit a pothole in Newark and the bang from my wheel hitting the edge of the hole was loud and drastic enough for me to worry about a flat tire. I didn't get a flat, fortunately, but my tire frame was bent.