Category Archives: episodes

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Adam Ortiz, the MidAtlantic regional administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency.

The conversation begins with a discussion of the role of a regional administrator at EPA. Ortiz emphasizes the importance of federal agencies working with local and state governments due to the complexity of environmental issues. He also discusses some of the specific challenges of the MidAtlantic: it is a coastal region with a rich industrial past; an agricultural region; and, a region where resource extraction has been prevalent. Taken together, the diversity of histories, industries, and geographies make the MidAtlantic a fascinating and challenging region for environmental governance.

The topic switches to environmental justice-related work and an ongoing Superfund cleanup in the city of Baltimore clean-up. The two discuss the value of redeveloping areas that experienced environmental damage in the past, especially given the concentration of these sites along lines of race and class. Ortiz discusses EPA’s efforts to identify and clean up these sites to “plug them back into society.” There is a large human component to this kind of work, and Ortiz emphasizes the importance of giving communities a voice and encouraging open, honest dialogue with residents. This is one of the main ways the EPA addresses the negative impacts of redevelopment, such as gentrification. They go on to discuss how EPA works with state and local actors on complex projects with many overlapping jurisdictions. (0:28-34:30)

The conversation shifts to the ways Ortiz’s department works to support indigenous tribes. The EPA works with tribes to support their sovereignty, protect their land, and help facilitate their capacity for environmental governance. Livermore then inquires about the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that has been of great concern to the EPA in recent years. Water quality has been improved overall, although progress hasn’t been linear, and EPA has only limited authority as a federal agency. Because of this, pollution control falls heavily on nearby states, and Ortiz points to recent efforts by the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The conversation turns to the intersection of politics and environmental governance at the regional level. Livermore asks whether regional governance faces less political polarization, and Ortiz observes that, compared to the national level, regional interactions are often less politicized. Ortiz praises a personal approach to solving complex issues, asserting the effectiveness of working with people directly and getting to know them personally. Additionally, there is a local advantage when it comes to political support for environmental initiatives, because people tend to care about places they interact with, regardless of political affiliation. (34:31-1:01:09)

This bonus episode is an impromptu roundtable discussion that was part of a working group at the Santa Fe Institute in February 2024 on biodiversity and the sustainable development goals.

The Santa Fe Institute is an interdisciplinary research institute dedicated to the study of complex adaptive systems. It was founded in 1984 by a group of scientists, many affiliated with with the Los Alamos National Laboratory. SFI host a range of gatherings at different scales, form public conferences to small working groups.

This working group was organized by two SFI affiliated scholars: Andy Dobson who is a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, an evolutionary anthropologist who is at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They group included scholars and practitioners from the social and behavioral sciences, conservation biology and ecology and law. The focus on the group was the question of how to jumpstart progress on halting biodiversity loss in the context of the the UN sustainable development goals.

The conversation in this podcast is with several members in the working group. The others in the conversation were Liam Smith, an expert in behavioral change and the director of BehaviorWorks Australia at Monash University; Tim O’Brien, an ecologist who worked for decades at the Wildlife Conservation Society; Margaret Kinnaird, an ecologist and the Global Wildlife Practice Leader at the World Wildlife Fund for Nature – International; Matt Turner, a post-doc and expert on computational modeling at the Stanford School of Sustainability; and Tim Caro, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Bristol.

In this solo episode, host Mike Livermore discusses the career of Dick Stewart, a mentor who was a longtime faculty member at NYU Law who died this past year. Livermore describes two important political developments in the twenty years since he met Stewart: the breakdown a functioning bipartisan coalition on environmental issues, and the decline of the “liberal international” order based on strong transnational institutions, free trade, and expanding human rights. These developments have helped contribute to a “reformation” of U.S. environmental law (a reference to Stewart’s famous law review article “The Reformation of American Administrative Law). The summer of 2022 marked the true sea change, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision.

Livermore discusses how this reformation has reshaped the emphasis of policy debates over U.S. environmental law. The first is a shift in emphasis from efficiency to distribution. The second is a shift from instrument choice (command-and-control versus market mechanisms) to industrial policy. The third is a shift from questions about administrative governance to a more basic debate of “pro-” versus “anti-” administration. The fourth is a shift from debates about how best to structure cooperative federalism to an ongoing struggle with antagonistic federalism.

Livermore offers some thoughts on the future grounds for both intra- and inter-party disagreement on U.S. environmental issues. Within the Democratic party, debates between environmentalists, energy developers, and labor unions were suppressed in the lead up to the passage of the IRA, but they have resurfaced in the context of siting reform and individual energy projects. These debates are likely to play an important role within the party in coming years. Within the Republican party, there is an increasing need to expand the party base, especially among younger voters, and the question is whether it is possible to square a more pro-environment approach with the party’s new right-wing-populism platform; perhaps via policies such as carbon border adjustments or a cap-and-dividend policy that is pitched as an anti-immigration measure. At the global level, increased nationalism and renewed tension are likely to increase energy competition. While this competition may increase incentives to invest in cleaner sources, an “energy independence” mindset also increases the cost of new technologies (through anti-trade policies) and encourages development of domestic fossil fuel sources.

Overall, political developments in the past twenty years have dimmed hopes for substantial policies that substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions. But one lesson from the reflections in the podcast is that politics is highly unpredictable, and trends that seem certain now may end up being less stable than they appear.

In this episode of the Free Range Podcast, host Michael Livermore is joined by guest Cale Jaffe, director of the Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law. The conversation touches on several key issues in environmental scholarship and pedagogy.

A theme of the conversation is the relationship between lawyers and communities in environmental disputes. Jaffe argues lawyers must approach communities with humility and truly listen to their goals and concerns. Environmental fights should be led by impacted residents rather than lawyers parachuting in with prescribed legal strategies. Jaffe shares an example opposing a Virginia coal plant where he took a top-down approach that alienated local community members.

Jaffe’s experience connects to debates within environmental justice scholarship around procedure versus substance. Jaffe emphasizes that inclusive processes must have power – community input should shape project outcomes. Mere listening without willingness to change plans is insufficient. Centering community voice and leadership is critical for just environmental policymaking.

Livermore and Jaffe also discuss the role of disagreement within the environmental community. Often, the major groups adopt unified stances to maximize resources and influence. However, these unified stances often mask internal disagreement on issues like nuclear power. There are no easy answers balancing coordination and open dissent.

In terms of environmental clinical pedagogy, Jaffe aims to develop wisdom in students rather than just technical skills. He stresses genuinely connecting with students as people first. He does so through blending classroom and practical work which helps model community lawyering goals like humility and listening. The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic allows engagement on varied issues of intellectual and social importance rather than just organizational priorities.

On this episode of the Free Range Podcast, host Mike Livermore has a conversation with literary scholar Nicholas Allen about his recent book “Ireland, Literature and the Coast: Seatangled.”

The discussion begins with an examination of the book’s evocative title. Allen explains that the phrase “seatangled” comes from a scene in James Joyce’s “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man,” where the character Stephen Dedalus looks out at the seaweed shreds in the ocean as he contemplates his future. For Allen, this image captures the ideas of motion, flight, and piecing things together that are central to his analysis of Irish literature through the lens of the sea and coastline.

The core of the book consists of close readings of authors, artists and specific works related to Irish coastal life and culture. Allen elaborates that he chose works that have long been stuck in his imagination, ranging from an early 20th century novel about a shipping clerk to the coastal maps created by artist Tim Robinson. His aim was not to be comprehensive but rather to highlight neglected or forgotten histories and show their continued cultural presence. In discussing his critical approach, Allen emphasizes that he is less interested in making definitive arguments and more interested in creating rhythms and connections that allow readers to see texts differently. He wants to find a descriptive language that conveys sensation and experience without colonizing or containing its subject. This pursuit of openness, empathy and freedom guides his writing.

The conversation explores how the coast features as both literal place and literary metaphor in the book. Other topics include the creative aspects of literary criticism, the meaning of “critical thinking,” placing Irish literature in a global context, the complications of national literature as a category, and Allen’s surprising archival discoveries while researching the book. Allen illuminates a fluid, interconnected approach to Irish literature that breaks down boundaries and expands perspectives.

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Robinson, a senior research scientist and the deputy director at the Center for Health at the Harvard School of Public Health. Lisa is a leading expert in the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate public policy.

The conversation begins with a discussion of the use of cost-benefit analysis and its importance in policy making. Robinson describes cost-benefit analysis as a systematic framework to examine policy impacts, which can help inform the choices made by political decision makers. Often, there are substantial uncertainties in analysis, which means that they do not deliver highly precise estimates. That said, the analytic process often generates useful information that can improve a policy. (0:11-5:22)

The two then discuss controversies surrounding cost-benefit analysis. Controversies include how to value morality risk reduction through tools like the “value of statistical life.” Robinson discusses her view that the term “value of statistical life” is misleading, because actually most rules affect very small risks that are experienced by large populations. Robinson also emphasizes the non-paternalistic nature of cost-benefit analysis, because it is based on how people actually value effects in the world. (5:22-25:56)

Robinson then describes how cost-benefit analysis has become complex over time which makes it difficult for the public to understand, and therefore analysts need to improve communication with non-experts. There are also empirical challenges surrounding this topic, with rising debates around accounting for distributional effects of this analysis. Often the effects of cost-benefit analysis are unevenly spread, causing issues for disadvantaged groups and enforcing the relevancy of value judgments. Overall, cost-benefit analysis informs decisions but does not dictate them. It provides useful information, but there are limitations such as legal constraints. More work is needed to extend and refine the framework across policy areas. Despite its difficulties, for Robinson, overall cost-benefit analysis contributes to good policy decisions that improve social welfare. (25:56-59:53)

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Leif Wenar, professor of philosophy at Stanford University and author of Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World.

Wenar first delves into his argument that the “resource curse” arises when natural resource wealth correlates with authoritarianism, conflict, and corruption. He explains this results from international rules allowing whoever controls resources to sell them legally, thereby empowering dictators and militias. Consumers are thus complicit in funding coercion through everyday purchases. To counter this, Wenar contends we should reform the rules to only allow purchasing natural resources from governments minimally accountable to their people. He provides specific civil liberties criteria to make this accountability judgment, noting countries like Brazil have already pursued such legislation. Beyond pragmatism, Wenar argues this principled reform based on popular sovereignty would prevent our complicity in suffering and reflect our professed ideals (0:37-28:13).

This relates to Wenar’s philosophical work on “unity theory” – the view that intrinsic goodness lies in unity of one’s will with the world, unity amongst people, and unity within oneself. Acts like cruelty and domination exemplify disunity and are intrinsically bad, while kindness and altruism reflect unity and are intrinsically good. Love represents the pinnacle of unity’s value.

Applied to resources, the status quo divides countries against themselves and pits the West against other nations in lose-lose conflicts. Though divisions abound, Wenar finds hope that humanity’s growing cooperation and stability suggest we are gradually unifying more over time. Ultimately, we should change unjust rules which divide peoples from their resources in order to build a more unified world. This connects to Wenar’s foundational value theory. He argues prevailing accounts based on pleasure or desire satisfaction fail to capture much of what we view as intrinsically good and bad. Unity better explains the full range of our value judgments, from the innate badness of spite and cruelty, to the essential goodness of love and altruism. Reform to unite people and resources is thus both pragmatic and philosophically grounded in a robust theory of value (28:14- 1:07:00).

On this episode Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown University and former Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Policy during the Obama administration.

The focus of the episode is centered around major Supreme Court decisions on environmental law over the past two decades. The two begin by discussing Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case where the Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Heinzerling explains that during the Bush administration, the EPA denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gases, arguing it lacked authority and did not want to regulate. Environmental groups challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant” (0:00-7:54).

The pair then discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA established clear statutory authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and shaped the Obama administration’s regulatory actions. Fifteen years later, and after a complicated procedural history, the Supreme Court reviewed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In that case, in striking contrast to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia, the Court also embraced the “major questions doctrine,” which presumes against broad agency regulatory authority on major policy issues (7:55-27:40).

On the Clean Water Act, Heinzerling and Livermore trace a similar pattern. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Court upheld federal jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, but the recent Sackett v. EPA (2022) severely restricted federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (27:41- 40:01).

Heinzerling expresses concern that the current Supreme Court’s skepticism of agency regulation will constrain executive and agency actions to address environmental problems like climate change. She finds the road traveled in just less than two decades from Massachusetts v. EPA to be “sobering.” Livermore concludes by noting that although some environmentalists believe that the courts could be a useful venue for promoting a strong response to climate change, with the current Court, that seems highly unlikely (40:02-56:45).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Jess Locke, an associate professor of philosophy at Loyola University, Maryland. She studies Buddhism, Western psychology, and cross-cultural philosophy.
Locke’s interest in Buddhism is both personal and scholarly. She has a longstanding contemplative practice, and when she began her PhD program in philosophy at Emory, her goal was to engage with Buddhism from a Western philosophical perspective. Locke discusses how her work as a philosopher working with Buddhist ideas differs from how scholars in religious studies departments approach some of the same material. For Locke, religious studies scholars often take a historiographical and anthropological perspective on religious traditions, whereas she is interested in using philosophy to interrogate the ideas in a more general way. (0:00-10:59).

Locke then discusses the difference between cultural appropriation and cross-cultural engagement when approaching Buddhist traditions. Over the past several decades, a mutual process of exchange across Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions — especially in the West — has opened up. This exchange has created a new frontier in the long history of Buddhism, which has spent centuries traveling, adapting to and blending in with different histories and cultural contexts. One important recent thread in Buddhism focuses on social engagement and how Buddhist principles like interdependence and impermanence to contemporary social issues like environmentalism. Some see this as distorting traditional Buddhism, while others argue Buddhism must adapt to new circumstances. (10:59-38:50).

The conversation wraps up with the contrast between Western and Eastern ethics. Locke explains how in Western culture, there is a larger focus on obligations and rights. For Locke, Buddhism is more concerned about ethical reflection and transformation than articulating a set of universal rules of conduct. In the environmental context, that might mean focusing on the relationship humans have with the environment rather than specifying the correct way to approach any given environmental problem. That said, Buddhism does not automatically lead to ethical behavior, as seen in some historical and contemporary examples like Japanese Zen nationalism and the persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar. There can be gaps between doctrine and how ideas manifest in society. Overall, Buddhism offers resources for rethinking the relationship between humans and nature, but does not represent a magic solution to ethical issues (38:50-1:02:06).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lee Fennell, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of Slices and Lumps: Division and Aggregation in Law and Life.

The conversation begins with a discussion of the role of aggregation in law. Fennell explains that in many other contexts, resources only provide value when they are combined into usable chunks. Property law can be understood as balancing two competing concerns – facilitating the aggregation of recourses to create value (on the one hand), and avoid too much aggregation, which can create opportunities for free-riding (0:36-18:13).

Fennell explains how property law helps individuals and groups create stream of benefits. Property law is distinctive, in part, because it involves the concept of ownership. But property’s traditional model of ownership doesn’t always fit modern needs to solve new collective action problems. Ideally, property owners have some power over their property – and confidence that their rights will remain stable, while also not being able to impede how things are put together for the greater good. Stability is important for property owners, but the world is dynamic. Culturally, there’s a conflict between the idea that property ownership involves absolute control and the reality that it’s constrained by regulations and external factors. A major challenge for the future is to redefined concept of property in a way that’s more adaptable but still aligns with people’s expectations of stability. One solution could involve allowing ownership interests over certain benefits (like housing) but not fixed to a specific physical footprint (like a particular house), providing flexibility while maintaining stability (18:14- 37:35).

Fennell is interested in how private and entrepreneurial efforts can work alongside existing property concepts to find ways to address challenges. This includes utilizing law to facilitate voluntary transactions and dynamic property management. However, Livermore points out that government coercion is inherent to property law. Fennell describes the challenge as transitioning from traditional property expectations to more flexible models that encourage voluntary interactions and entrepreneurial solutions, adapting property arrangements to address today’s urban and environmental challenges.

In reimagining property systems, two major changes could be considered: first, making property ownership less permanent and allowing for adjustments; second, moving away from fixed geographic locations and making property rights more dynamic. This could involve creating options for property ownership that can be called back or reconfigured under certain conditions and enabling more flexibility and collaboration among owners for potential redevelopment. Another approach might involve concentrating property under a single owner who can then rearrange holdings, but this approach comes with its own challenges of concentration and scale. These ideas aim to introduce more adaptability and responsiveness to property systems while still maintaining individual ownership. Lastly, addressing inequality through property involves considering how services are created and distributed, as political decisions and public goods shape property’s value and impact; illuminating these dynamics can help reveal alternative ways to configure property for a more equitable outcome (37:36- 1:02:27).