freerangesupport

Season 1, Episode 14

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Elizabeth Kolbert. Kolbert is a writer at The New Yorker, as well as the author of several books, including The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, for which she won a Pulitzer Prize in 2015. Her most recent book, Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future, was published in 2021.

The podcast begins with Kolbert discussing how journalism, as a profession, has changed over the course of her career. While praising the accessibility that the internet has provided journalists, Kolbert also laments the way it has profoundly altered the industry’s economic model, resulting in less funding being made available for in-depth reporting. She also warns that one of the unexpected byproducts of the freedom of information has been the freedom of disinformation. This has been exacerbated by changes in how journalists do their job in the internet age, where there is far less personal interaction between writers and the individuals they are writing about. Kolbert explains that the type of long-form journalism she specializes in still requires a serious investment, and this has led to new funding options such as non-profit journalism organizations. (:40 – 7:52)

The conversation then shifts to Kolbert’s new book, which Livermore describes as a book about unintended consequences and tragic choices in relation to the environment. One example in Under a White Sky is gene drive technology, which Kolbert explains are biological mechanisms that preferentially pass down genetic material from generation to generation. Currently there is an effort to create synthetic gene drives that would allow for the suppression of malaria in mosquitoes. Given its powerful implications, this technology is controversial, and some have compared it to the invention of the atom bomb in the sense that our scientific ability has exceeded the limits of our control. Along those lines, Kolbert states that the goal is to eventually release these modified mosquitoes in regions of Africa with high malaria transmission, but presently there is significant worry about the unintended consequences of that action. (8:13 – 18:02)

This leads to an extended conversation about geo-engineering, another technology that Kolbert examines in her book. Like gene drives, geo-engineering is a technology that, hypothetically, would allow humanity to control the environment. Kolbert talks about the two primary forms of geo-engineering – removing carbon from the atmosphere and reflecting solar activity away from the earth. She emphasizes that although we do not have the capacity to remove carbon from the atmosphere at a massive commercial scale, most carbon neutrality plans place great weight on the ability to commercialize that technology in the near future. The other alternative – blocking sunlight from entering the atmosphere — poses its own set of problems, from altered weather patterns to a change in the color of the sky. Kolbert also makes the point that no amount of geo-engineering will counterbalance continued carbon emissions, and the challenges associated with controlling emissions are only increasing as the world becomes more unstable. (18:10 – 29:53)

The podcast concludes with Kolbert offering insight into how she remains motivated to report on material that is often quite depressing to consider (29:55 – 31:55).

Season 1, Episode 13

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jennifer Cole and Michael Vandenbergh. Dr. Cole is a postdoctoral scholar in social psychology at the Vanderbilt Climate Change Research Network, and Professor Vandenbergh is the David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law at the Vanderbilt University Law School. Their work examines the political polarization of climate change and covid policies.

To start off, Livermore asks his guests how they stay positive when studying something as divisive as the politicization of climate change. Vandenbergh explains the concept of “solution aversion,” which happens when individuals are aware of a solution but are wary of the means to achieve it. Cole then describes how this problem can be avoided by leveraging group polarization to shift perspectives and uses this example to talk about the field of social psychology, generally, and what her work focuses on, specifically (:40 – 5:16).

This leads to a discussion about the state of polarization in both climate issues and covid issues. Climate change, Vandenbergh says, has become so polarized that it can essentially serve as substitute for all other political views, across the social spectrum. Cole then defines the concept of “pluralistic ignorance,” or the gap that exists between what a group actually believes and what others think that groups believe. In the case of climate change, people think Republicans as a group do not believe in climate change, but research demonstrates that a substantial number of Republicans agree with the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring. The guests then explain how societal reactions to covid have paralleled those to climate change. Cole found that rather than treating covid as a shared threat, people responded to it with the same level of political polarization that they have to climate change (5:18 – 14:02).

This leads to an extended discussion about the disconnect between party bases and party elites. Vandenbergh suggests some tactics that party elites can engage in to attempt to shift the position of a party base, such as appealing to primary voters or appearing on popular media platforms. This part of the conversation then segues into an explanation of how party leaders can control messaging before an issue becomes broadly accepted amongst the party’s base (14:05 – 29:38).

Moving away from a focus on party elites, Livermore asks what kind of strategy would be optimal to change perceptions amongst a party’s base. Vandenbergh emphasizes how stressing private sector action can be quite helpful, particularly in the case of something like climate change, while Cole says the research suggests discussing issues more often can actually lead to shifts in mindset. (29:46 – 36:49)

The conversation concludes with Livermore posing the hypothetical of a conservation group that, in all other issues, is conservatively-oriented, and asking why it is difficult to envision such an organization existing in our current climate. Vandenbergh counters that there are some Republicans engaged in the climate change space, while also arguing that the real focus should be on those organizations that are complying with their ESG commitments, and using that as a tool to urge non-compliant organizations to fall in line. Cole suggests that climate change-focused organizations may be able to use conservative terminology and appeal to conservative morality to appeal to conservatives, even if the organization more broadly does not align itself with conservative ideology (36:53 – 43:07).

Season 1, Episode 12

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Cara Daggett, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, about her new book The Birth of Energy: Fossil Fuels, Thermodynamics, and the Politics of Work.

Daggett begins by speaking about her path to studying energy via her background in biochemistry and politics. Daggett explains that her interest in carbon — the basis of life in a scientific context but a hot-button issue in the political sphere — led to a broader awareness of how politics treat the concept of energy as fuel. This, in turn, inspired an examination of how various terms such as power and, particularly, work are thought about. (:55 – 7:45)

Livermore and Daggett discuss the relationship between politics and science. Daggett voices concerns about the treatment of policy issues as purely empirical. Using the example of the opioid crisis, Daggett argues that many people have legitimate questions about how scientific knowledge is created, and for whose benefit – failing to acknowledge and address those questions is unlikely to build trust in cases such as climate change or vaccination. (7:50 – 12:34) Livermore asks about the interaction between scientific concepts and socio-political discourse, specifically within the context of her study of thermodynamics. Daggett explains that some of the key sites of this interaction are in areas like politics and workplace management, where life itself is governed. This leads to a close reading of a paragraph from the book, in which Daggett describes what energy is and how it fits within the context of the Western understandings of work. (12:44 – 27:15) Daggett then explains how this understanding has led to a valuation of dynamism and energy in a range of areas, including modern conceptions of masculinity. (27:20 – 33:03)

The conversation then expands to include a long discussion of the relationship between thermodynamics and economic theory, particular in relation to the shared concepts of waste and work. This part of the talk touches on a range of ideas, including the natural tensions of a society that is experiencing increased automation while still valuing the concept of work itself, and whether Jeff Bezos’ flights to space are wasteful. (33:10 – 59:10)

The podcast concludes with a discussion of the “post-work perspective” in relation to environmental regulation and climate politics. (59:20 – 1:06:35)

Season 1, Episode 11

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Nicholas Agar, a moral philosopher who is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Australia. His most recent book, How to be Human in the Digital Economy, was published by MIT Press in 2019.

The conversation begins with something of a retrospective of one of Agar’s earlier works, Life’s Intrinsic Value, which examines the foundations of moral consideration for non-humans. Agar explains how his approach to these ideas have evolved in the three decades since the book was published. In particular, Agar expands on his belief that philosophy must challenge long-held and widely-accepted beliefs. This leads to a discussion on what Agar describes as one of the central concepts within bio-ethics, the important challenge of determining what life is valued and why. (:40 – 9:56)

The conversation then proceeds to examine how these challenges fit within, and are influenced by, a hyperconnected modernity in which individuals are acutely aware of how their actions affect the world, generally. Agar contends that this aspect of contemporary life has inspired a broad range of reactions, most notably a certain nostalgia for a time when society was less connected, and perhaps even an affinity for political movements which absolve individuals of their responsibility. (10:00 – 14:52) Livermore questions if the decline in spiritual cosmologies has also played some role in this state of affairs, and Agar explains how a connection with the natural world may have contributed to a more ethically viable approach to the environment. This leads to an analysis of the work of another moral philosopher, Peter Singer, and the points of intersection and divergence between Singer’s and Agar’s work. (14:55 – 23:56)

Livermore then asks Agar about his views on the rights of nature and of organisms within nature, and how that connects to religion, atheism, the legal regime of nature’s rights, and morality. (24:00 – 30:00) The conversation then shifts to the interdisciplinary nature of Agar’s work, and how he incorporates the humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences into his philosophical analysis. Agar explains that, in contrast to many philosophers, in some instances he emphasizes breadth over depth, which allows for a wider understanding of a given issue and creates a space for experimentation within the field (30:05 – 39:54). This leads to a long discussion of Agar’s recent studies, with a specific focus on the nature of work and how societies can create jobs that are beneficial to individuals’ well-being. Agar argues that humans are fundamentally social creatures, and therefore we should aim to create jobs that allow individuals to maintain social connections. Agar also explains why, through the forced interaction that the social digital workplace economy provides, he believes work can be a tool for combating the increasing balkanization of society and isolation of individuals. (40:00 – 1:03:58).

Season 1, Episode 10

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Arden Rowell, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Rowell’s work focuses on environmental law, human behavior, and the incorporation of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of environmental law. Her new book, The Psychology of Environmental Law, co-written with Kenworthey Bilz, was recently published by NYU Press.

Rowell begins by explaining why, despite the interdisciplinary nature of environmental law, psychology has not, to this point, had the effect on environmental law that it could and should have. She goes on to explain how and why environmental law and policy, in particular, need to be considered from a psychological perspective. This relates to the specific kinds of injuries that are suffered in the environmental law context, with Rowell explaining that environmental injuries are diffuse, complex and difficult to process, and often non-human character. This combination of factors means that it can be difficult for people to attach emotion and value to environmental injuries (1:15 – 8:02). Delving into more detail of these factors, Rowell first addresses the non-human character of environmental injury, with a focus on how this interacts with economic theories of preferences. She also weighs in on whether the public’s reflective preferences should drive environmental reform, and more broader sociological factors that can influence environmental policy (8:20 – 23:27).

Rowell then speaks about the psychology of how people engage with various environmental issues, such as pollution and the natural/man-made dichotomy. To illustrate her point, Rowell relates a couple of anecdotes from her book, including one about the Mount Tabor reservoir in Portland, Oregon (23:55 – 32:28).

The conversation then segues into an in-depth discussion of particulate matter air pollution, wildfire management, and the changing public perception of wildfires generally. Rowell explains that this fits into a broader discussion regarding the shift in public preference from the artificial to the natural, and how risk perception is changing in response to this shift (32:35 – 43:39). Rowell then explains how this information can be used to shape policy in order to better address actual, rather than perceived, risks. She also discusses the role moral disengagement plays in shaping environmental policy and people’s view of climate change. (43:52 – 53:32).

The conversation concludes with a consideration of the effect of in-group/out-group psychology on our understanding of environmental harm, how this relates to rising nationalism across the globe, and whether a nationalistic environmental policy is sustainable long-term (53:37 – 1:01:00).
Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Season 1, Episode 9

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Shi-Ling Hsu, the D’Alemberte Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at the Florida State University College of Law. He is also the author of the book Capitalism and the Environment: A Proposal to Save the Environment, which was published in December 2021 by Cambridge University Press.

Professor Hsu begins by discussing what motivated him to pursue a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics, having already practiced for several years as a lawyer, and how his experience as a graduate student with a law degree differed from his colleagues (1:00 – 2:58). Hsu then summarizes the basic argument of his new book: that the environmental problems the world currently faces are not the fault of capitalism but, rather, are the result of society’s decisions. This leads to a discussion about the relative advantages of capitalism versus centralized planning when it comes to dealing with environmental problems. As part of this analysis, Hsu comments on the shift away from market-based mechanisms that has characterized recent environmental law (3:00 – 11:30).

This discussion raises the question of what role increasingly stark economic inequality has played in creating discontentment towards capitalism, to the point of blaming capitalism for things that are not, according to Hsu, capitalism’s fault. This leads to an in-depth conversation about the benefits and drawbacks of using capitalism as a means of addressing environmental issues, the intersection of economic inequality and the political undermining of capitalism, and why Hsu believes socialism is not the answer some might think it is (11:35 – 24:45).

Professor Livermore then asks Professor Hsu about the libertarian argument against taxation, both in terms of environmental law and more generally. Professor Hsu explains that some libertarian arguments about reducing the size of government may be misguided, drawing on his experience of working on environmental projects with the Canadian government. Hsu also explains why he believes taxes are more beneficial than subsidies, with Professor Livermore pointing out that the unpopularity of taxes when compared with subsidies means that taxes are difficult to use in environmental contexts. Hsu suggests that a compromise might be reached in which nascent renewable energy technologies are subsidized, leading to a political economy in which taxation is more palatable, and then proposes other ways to reduce the apprehension towards taxation (25:00 – 42:05).

Professor Livermore questions whether a carbon tax will ever be widely accepted, which leads Professor Hsu to suggest that the United States has simply not yet reached the point of crisis that may be necessary to shift the emphasis from subsidization to taxation, which leads to a discussion of the Green New Deal (42:07 – 48:33) Professor Livermore compares carbon taxation with the various “glide-path” policies that were used to reduce cigarette consumption (48:35 – 50:50).

The conversation ends with a return to Professor Hsu’s book, and what effect he believes the work will have on the current debate surrounding environmental economics, and who the argument in his book is appealing to (50:53 – 59:19).

Season 1, Episode 8

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Karen Bradshaw, a Professor of Law and the Mary Sigler Research Fellow at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Bradshaw’s work examines the intersection of environmental law and property law. Her most recent book, Wildlife as Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights, contends that property rights can be a useful tool in the protection of endangered wildlife.

Bradshaw begins by providing a summation of the central argument of her book, and explaining how the conclusions she comes to are, in fact, a continuation of trends that have been gaining legitimacy in both property rights law and trusts and estates law. She also describes how many of the ideas discussed in the book were well-established in non-Western legal systems and property regimes, such as those of many pre-colonial indigenous communities. This would constitute an expansion of the original understanding of environmental law as it was conceived in the 1970s (:55 – 10:04).

The conversation then focuses on what steps the United States government, which owns nearly a third of the country’s land area, could take to ensure that wildlife interests are adequately protected against future land takings. Bradshaw describes the process through which the status quo could be changed, so that property can, in fact, be owned by animals and managed on their behalf. Bradshaw argues that the understanding of who (or what) has a right to own property is in constant evolution, and much of the publicly-owned land in the United States is already being managed for the benefit of animals. This part of the discussion incorporates a variety of legal concepts, including conservation easements and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (10:13 – 30:14).

This leads to questions about how the legal system would define ownership, and what sorts of natural entities would be entitled to ownership rights. Bradshaw claims that the example offered by approaches to animal rights within the context of the high seas — areas of the ocean outside national boundaries — might be indicative of the path to take within national boundaries. Bradshaw also talks about her own experience with this issue, as she is in the process of titling her own property to incorporate the animals that live on it (30:20 – 37:12).

Using her firsthand experience as a reference point, Bradshaw compares the animal-ownership regime with more traditional means of protecting land for wildlife, such as donation to a conservation trust, emphasizing the importance of a move away from anthropocentric understandings of land ownership. This leads to a more in-depth discussion of the legal responsibilities and practical realities of managing animal-owned land (37:40 – 55:40).

The conversation concludes with a broad discussion about how we approach animals generally, touching on such ideas as whether blue jays have an easement to the trees in someone’s backyard and the extent to which prairie dogs are able to speak, rather than simply communicate, with one another (55:50 – 1:06:53).

Season 1, Episode 7

Today on Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with his colleague Jonathan Cannon, who retired from UVA Law in May 2021 after over two decades of teaching at the law school. Prior to joining UVA Law, Cannon served as general counsel to the EPA, and his 1998 memo, which has come to be known as “the Cannon memo,” was influential in opening a path for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He is currently writing a book about the significance of “place.”

Cannon begins by explaining what the concept of place means to him, and how it has shaped both his professional and personal experiences throughout his life (1:12 – 6:00). The conversation then examines American environmental policy generally, how environmental concerns are framed in the public sphere, and what influences shape how individuals experience their environment (6:05 – 12:20).

Shifting to more theoretical ideas, Cannon and Livermore discuss normative approaches to the environment and how conflicting views of place might be reconciled. This part of the conversation also examines the role ethics and aesthetics play in establishing normative views of the environment (12:35 – 26:25). Moving to one of the main talking points within the environmental movement, Cannon examines the tension that exists between the desire to protect landscapes and the destruction of landscapes that inevitably occurs as a result of human development (26:30 – 32:16).

This leads to a more philosophical consideration of the function of sensory experiences in determining how individuals relate to “places,” with both Cannon and Livermore describing the ways their individual personal experiences, as children and adults, informed their understanding of what makes “place” significant (32:23 – 47:12).

To conclude the conversation, Cannon and Livermore discuss the problematic history of the ideal of natural beauty in American culture. This contested history has taken on increased significance for Cannon personally as, after moving into the house where he currently lives, he and his wife uncovered a ledger of people who had previously been enslaved on the property. Cannon talks about how this discovery has altered his relationship to the place, and what steps he has taken in its aftermath (47:20 – 58:40). Finally, Cannon explains how shared experiences of place may encourage consensus at the local level (59:02 – 1:02:47).

Season 1, Episode 6

Transcription

Today on Free Range, Mike Livermore discusses coastal preservation with Karen McGlathery. McGlathery is a professor at the University of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Sciences and the Director of UVA’s Environmental Resilience Institute. McGlathery’s work centers on coastal ecosystems and the discussion today covers a number of different topics related to climate change and coastal communities.

McGlathery begins by discussing her path to becoming an environmental scientist (:55 – 4:00). She then outlines the work being done at the University of Virginia’s Resilience Institute, including explaining what the term “resilience” means in the context of the environmental sciences, and how the institute works on issues related to climate change (4:10 – 7:57).

McGlathery discusses one of the institute’s recent projects, which examines the effects of coastal storms on flooding patterns, saltwater contamination of fresh water sources, and how this impacts water sustainability. The project, which is based on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, reflects the institute’s interdisciplinary approach by including not just university-based scientists but also local community organizers and faith-based leaders (8:05 – 16:22).

This segues to a discussion about what kinds of futures are envisioned for coastal communities, such as coastal restoration or retreat inland. This leads to a discussion of what role the concept of equity plays in these considerations, and how rising sea levels may lead to difficult decisions in this regard, particularly as so many coastal communities have based their economies on access to the coast (17:30 – 27:00).

The focus of the conversation then shifts to one of McGlathery’s primary areas of expertise — coastal ecosystems and their importance in the fight against catastrophic climate change. McGlathery goes over both the positive and negative aspects of these “blue carbon sinks,” which include seagrass meadows, mangroves, and marshlands, and signals the way in which these areas may be used by entities to falsely claim they are carbon-neutral (27:20 – 38:35).

This leads to an explanation of the process through which scientists measure the amount of carbon a carbon sink is able to remove from the atmosphere. This part of the discussion expands the conversation’s focus to incorporate questions about whether environmental policy decisions can keep up with the realities of climate change (38:40 – 50:21).

Finally, the conversation touches on the costs associated with coastal preservation and how those costs may rise in the future, making it more difficult to justify them among the public (50:25 – 59:40).

Season 1, Episode 5

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range with Mike Livermore, Mike speaks with Boston University School of Law professor Madison Condon about the interaction between corporate governance and environmental concerns. Condon has written extensively on how corporations are changing their approach to the environment in the face of climate change issues and the rise of ESG investing, which incorporates Environmental, Social, and Governance considerations into larger investment strategies.

The conversation starts off with a discussion of the influence of massive investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in the world of corporate governance. These funds are so large that they are now capable of exerting considerable influence over corporate decisions. Condon introduces the concept of Universal Owner theory in the corporate world: institutional investors have such diversified portfolios that it is now in their best interests to care about the environment (1:04 – 7:18).

This leads into an analysis of activist investment fund Engine No. 1 which, in 2021, engaged in a successful proxy battle to gain seats on ExxonMobil’s board of directors. Condon also touches on broader questions of whether the strategy employed by Engine No. 1 to win the proxy battle opens the door for potential antitrust violations, and the benefits and drawbacks of shareholder primacy. Expanding on these questions, Livermore and Condon discuss a hypothetical situation in which an institutional investment fund acts to benefit itself at the expense of a company’s continued existence, and what this behavior might implicate more generally (8:40 – 21:50).

Condon then talks about one of the potential outcomes of activist investment — a rise in shareholder derivative suits alleging that boards have breached their fiduciary duties. This part of the conversation hits on various aspects of corporate law, including the scope of the business judgment rule and the significance of Delaware in America’s corporate legal regime (23:43 – 31:45).

The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the divestment movement as a strategy to influence corporate behavior in the environmental context, the way corporations have engaged in greenwashing in response to the divestment movement’s demands, and the rise of ESG in corporate decision-making (31:51 – 48:52).

The conversation concludes with Condon clarifying her position regarding just how influential investment funds can actually be in affecting action to slow climate change (50:21 – 55:30).