Things That Left Me Shook Week Two

       On this journey of self discovery, I have discovered that nearly everything I thought I knew about the environment was utterly and completely wrong. There were words thrown around in this week’s articles that I genuinely thought were made up until the works actually defined them for me. The most complicated of those new words, which was also the one that the articles focused on the most, was just transition. Each reading gave us a different point of view as to what exactly a just transition is and what a just transition should be, it was very much like a Jekyl and Hyde situation. Everyone wants more out of the terminology; from redefining it to better suit the 3 justices (McCauley and Heffron 2018), to ensuring that communities of color are included in the discussion (Sara Mersha 2017), to creating a just transition that includes the complete destruction of the extractive economy that the USA holds so close and dear to ther hearts (Movement Generation Justice 2017). It is apparent to everyone that this transition from fossil feels to renewable energy is going to happen in the immediate future, there is just a lot of controversy on whether or not the just part is going to accompany it. 

       Another very important topic that kept coming up in the readings was the ideas around reparations, and including the people most harmed by the damage into the conversation. Fingers crossed that both of those things make it in the long run because it is impossible to have anything just without addressing the previous injustices the United States has done to people all over the world, especially people of color. I really enjoyed reading about the efforts local communities in Haiti, Nigeria, Honduras and the good ol USA to combat the negative side affects of climate change will also instituting their visions for what the future should look like. I wish that the magazine had done something similar with case studies instead of just telling us how economies work. I was also very confused by their definition of queer. I don’t know whether their definition of it being total rejection and using it in terms of the government is disrespectful or not. It just gave me an extremely weird feeling in my gut, I’ve just seen too many people use it incorrectly that whenever someone tried to use it in a non traditional way I can’t help but feel a little cringe/ The magazine article was definitely the article that left me a little cringe because of how they worded certain things, I agreed with the concepts just not all of the wording. My favorite article would have to be the Sara Mersha article because she used extremely interesting case studies to prove her points and listed out her points. It was not conduluded at all which was nice because typically academic writers use unnecessary conduluded language to make themselves sound smarter. Someone who did use conduluded language o make themselves sound smarter was McCauley and Heffron. I hate it when an entire arguement could just be made in two pages but the authors expand it three times that. Their argument was nice, just way too complicated and conduluded. 

Key Terms:

1) Just Transition: fair and equitable process of moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

2) Green Revolution: Big Business sending out GMO to affected communities to try and “help” but it ends up doing more harm than good. 

3) Extractive Econnomy: An economy based on screwing over everyone in order to help the ones in power get richer 

Bibliography: 

       McCauley, Darren, Rachel Heffron. 2017. “Just Transition: Integrating Climate, Energy and.                 Environmental Justice.” Energy Policy 119:1-7.

       Mersha, Sara. 2017. “Black Lives and Climate Justice: Courage and Power in Defending Communities and Mother Earth” Third World Quarterly 39(7):1421-1434

       2017. “From Banks and Tanks to Coopération and caring: A Strategic Franework for a Just Transition.” Movement Generation Justice and Ecology Zine.