Arden Rowell on the Psychology of Environmental Law
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.
Episode is an appropriate teaching tool for but not limited to the following topics & courses: psychology, environmental law, environmental policy, ethics
Discussion Questions
- Why hasn’t the field of psychology historically had as much influence on environmental law as other fields like economics or the natural sciences? What unique insights can psychology provide?
- How do concepts like “natural” vs “artificial” shape public perceptions of pollution and risk? How should policymakers take this into account?
- Discuss the idea of “moral disengagement” and how it relates to climate change. Why is the scientific evidence for climate change so hotly contested?
- What is the “hometown pollution effect” and how might it impact environmental regulations? How can policymakers address this psychological bias?
- What are some ways that in-group/out-group psychology influences environmental policy and politics? How does it relate to climate change mitigation efforts?
- When there is a mismatch between public perceptions/preferences and optimal environmental policy, how should policymakers balance public opinion and technical expertise? What principles of democratic governance apply?
- Explore the idea of “reflective” vs “non-reflective” preferences. When public preferences seem to be shaped by psychological biases, should policy aim to shape “better” preferences?
- How does the concept of moral disengagement help explain the fierce debates over climate science? What does this suggest about underlying views on responsibility?
- Discuss the challenges in calculating the “social cost of carbon.” Should harms to other nations be considered equally? How does psychology and ethics relate to this debate?
- Overall, what unique insights does psychology provide for the practice and study of environmental law? How might these insights lead to better policy outcomes?
Additional Readings
- Richard Revesz & Michael Livermore, “Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health,” Oxford University Press (2008).
- Alexa Spence, “Framing and Communicating Climate Change: The Effects of Distance and Outcome Frame Manipulations,” 20 Global Envt’l Change 656 (2010).
- Donald Braman, Dan Kahan, & Hank Jenkins-Smith, “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus,” George Washington Law Faculty Publications (2010).
- Environment in the Balance by Jonathan Cannon, Chapter 1.
- Greg Harman, “Your brain on climate change: why the threat produces apathy, not action,” The Guardian (Nov. 10, 2014).
- Andrea Thompson, “What Makes People Act on Climate Change, according to Behavioral Science,” Scientific American (Apr. 19, 2023).
- Cameron Brick, Anna Bosshard, & Lorraine Whitmarsh, “Motivation and Climate Change: A Review,” 42 Current Opinion in Psychology 82 (2021).
- Jonathan Baron, “The Discount Rate for the Social Cost of Carbon,” The Regulatory Review (Jan. 18, 2017).
Free Range Podcast 