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 1814 burning of the Captiol Building was in response to the American's burning fown York. The British decided to return the favor and burn down the captiol buildings and other cities in the Union. The building itslef had structural issues with poor ventilation, rotting timbers, and leaking roofs. In the efforts to reconstruct the capitol building, the engineer was met with public criticism, which could be considered out of line to an expert. He stated that the buildings left from the fire were already doomed, regardless of the fire's destruction. Other questions were brought by the public after the fire, such as the defense of the capitol and the war of 1812 itself. The engineer, Latrobe, conducted his own "investigation" of the buildings. In the end, the investiagtion revealed that the public was not as concerned with the how, but more the reasons why. 

In 1850 , a boiler exploded in the basement of a printing press factory in Manhattan. The diasaster led to a number of workers, notable children and adults alike, being trapped in the rubble in need of rescue. These rescue attempts were repeatedly halted in order to put out emerging fires around the explosion site. The total death toll was 67, with an additonal 50 injured. Seventeen jurors were brought to the site to observe the boiler (what remained of it) for its strength and fitness for use. Out of all the witnesses called forward for questioning on the boiler's fitness, numerous named any number of issues, specific to their area of expertise. The engineer who designed the boiler stated it was not properly constructed wiht numerous defects. The maker of the boiler had examined the boiler and found cracks prior to the explosion. The end result of the investiagtion revealed that the public had a fair amount of knowledge on the workings and issues with boilers. The incident also effected change in the inspection policies. 

The Iroquois Theater Fire happened in part due to the design of the theater and in part from the mistakes of the managers of the building. Exits were blocked or locked. The investigation revealed that the inspections of the theater were never truly enforced and many things did not meet code (such as fire sprinklers placement). The public, in this case, played a crucial role in pushing for a public investiagtion of the Iroquois, and other theaters. 

"... pathology, which previously aroused suspicion, has therefore become a source of social recognition"

"The issuing of a diagnosis and prognosis- an every-day act for the clinician, in principle involving no difficulties other than technical ones- became a problem of conscience that seemed like to invovle ideological of ethical issues" 

"The logic of state sovereignty in the control of immigration clearly prevailed over the universality of the priciple of the right to life. The compassion protocol had met its limit"