On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Jenny Kendler, the artist in residence with NRDC. Kendler is an artist and activist whose work focuses on climate change and biodiversity loss.
The conversation begins with a discussion of one of Kendler’s ongoing works, Amber Archive. To draw attention to the anthropogenic loss of biodiversity, this piece represents an imagined future where humanity is interested in undoing the harm that has been done. There are a number of energy intensive, high-tech initiatives in place to preserve DNA of threatened species, but Kendler imagines a more ancient and analog way (0:46-9:33).
The next work Livermore and Kendler discuss is Underground Library, which represents a library composed of discarded and unread books that sample the history of nonfiction works on climate change. This piece surveys what we’ve known about the state of the climate and how that knowledge has been dismissed. Many of these books went unread and were discarded from libraries as a result. Kendler uses a method of burning known as biochar to burn and eventually bury the books, representing their destruction and simultaneous preservation (9:34-17:48).
The Bewilder project highlights butterfly and moth eye spots which are not their eyes, but act as a decorative camouflage to evade predators. This piece serves as a biomimicry strategy inspired by activists who publish guides on how to disrupt facial recognition technology. The next piece is Birds Watching, which is a 40-foot sculpture that depicts 100 eyes of birds that are threatened or endangered by climate change. This piece is intended to represent the birds’ gaze upon us, leading viewers to question their relationship to these animals (17:49-29:21).
Studies for Bioremediation is a series of photo collages with a relationship to problematic monuments in Richmond, VA. Bioremediation allows for plants or living creatures to remove toxicity from a site. Creating a physical representation of this metaphor, Kendler implemented the idea of planting Kudzu, a quick-growing plant, at the base of the statues and letting nature do the work. The next piece is Music for Elephants, which is a restored 1921 vintage player piano with an all ivory keyboard. The music is based on data from scientists that work on elephant poaching. The keyboard plays a note for each month based on the amount of elephants that might die. This piece has a temporal existence as it unfolds through time, similar to extinction itself (29:22-48:52).
Kendler’s art is organically arising, stemming from a deeply research driven process. She finds a synchronization between the concept and the material which is very carefully articulated. Her work is always about culture change, as she emphasizes the importance of a contemporary moment that requires all of us to rise in whatever ways we can (49:53-1:01:52).
Tag Archives: climate
Season 2, Episode 2
On this episode of Free Range, Host Mike Livermore is joined by two University of Virginia Law students, Matt Disandro and Elizabeth Putfark, who have produced this explainer episode on the pros and cons of wood pellets as a replacement for fossil fuels.
To make wood pellets, wood from trees is broken apart, heated to reduce moisture, converted to a fine powder, and compressed to form dense, short pellets. According to Daniel Reinemann from Bioenergy Europe, a nonprofit based in Brussels that advocates for biomass energy, wood pellets are the closest thing that the biomass market has to a commodity. (6:50-8:09)
Dr. Knight, the Group Director of Sustainability at the U.K energy company Drax, explains the key difference between biomass and fossil fuels: fossil fuels take millions of years to turn biological matter into fuel; biomass, on the other hand, was carbon in the sky a few years ago. Disandro, Putfark, Knight, and Reinemann discuss carbon sequestration, the carbon dividend, and the potential technology known as “BECCS” – bioenergy carbon capture and storage. Many policies encourage the use of wood pellets, including the European Union Renewable Energy Directive. (8:10-19:57)
The biomass industry doesn’t just affect Europe; it also impacts wood pellet manufacturers in the Southeast United States, which is very rich in timber. To discuss the market for pellets in the Southeast US, Disandro and Putfark are joined by Professor Bob Abt, a forest economist at North Carolina State University. Abt discusses the tradeoffs and distributional consequences of the growing demand for wood pellets from the Southeast. (19:58-24:42)
Notwithstanding support in the EU for wood pellets, conservationists have been raising alarms. Lousie Guillot, a journalist at Politico, provides some background on the controversy. (24:43-26:46) According to Dr. Mary Booth, the director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity’s science and advocacy work, burning wood is not a carbon neutral energy source. Dr. Booth and the hosts discuss the urgency of reducing emissions now and the important role trees play in taking carbon out of the atmosphere. (26:46 – 31:20) One feature of the controversy is how the Renewable Energy Directive classifying wood pellets as a zero-carbon energy source, despite objections from some environmentalists. (31:21 – 33:27)
An additional question is whether wood pellets are mostly derived from forest refuse — which is the treetops, branches, and diseased trees left behind from logging – rather than whole trees. Heather Hillaker, at the Southern Environmental Law Center, explains her research on wood pellet sourcing in the U.S. Southeast. Using satellite imagery, SELC’s geospatial team found that 84% of the hardwood material being used for bioenergy came from whole trees instead of refuse. Guillot shares details of similar problems happening in European forests. (33:28 – 38:49) Hillaker goes on to discusses the social and community impacts of the wood pellet mills on environmental justice communities. (38:51 – 44:59)
Livermore, Disandro and Putfark wrap up the episode by discussing their own views on the pros and cons of wood pellets and what, if anything, the wood pellets experience teaches about broader issues in climate policy. (45:00 – 51:43)
Season 1, Episode 28
On today’s episode of Free Range, Livermore is joined by Michael Greenstone, the Milton Freedman Distinguished Service Professor in Economics and the Director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. He served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors and has worked for decades engaged in research and policy development on environmental issues.
Livermore and Greenstone begin by discussion the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act and their policy implications (0:47-4:47) Greenstone offers his take on what the IRA means (if anything) concerning the role of economists in debates over climate policy (4:48-8:49) and the two discuss the relationship between energy prices and politics. (8:50-14:10) Livermore and Greenstone agree that transparency of pricing mechanisms can be both a feature and a bug. Greenstone mentions that while the US is viewed as a free market place, our instinct is to approach the situation as engineers. (14:11-20:20) He then offers thoughts on why the engineering approach won out in the IRA. (20:21 – 25:34)
The two discuss the factors that helped lead to lower technology costs green cleaner energy sources, which helped pave the way for the IRA. (25:35-28:12) The sulfur dioxide trading mechanism in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments is a classic example of policy that promoted low cost emissions reductions; R&D funding is another area where government is justified. (28:13-30:24)
The two turn to the question of economic forecasting in climate debates. (30:25-34:17) Greenstone discusses the work of the Climate Impact Lab, which he directs, which is improving estimates of climate damages and the social cost of carbon. (34:18-40:55) The two discuss the role of adaptation in climate damage estimates (40:56-47:05) and the role of distributional analysis. (47:06-51:15) The two then discuss an alternative to the social cost of carbon that is based on “marginal abatement costs” associated with achieving a given climate goal. (51:16-57:11)
To conclude, Livermore asks about the potential path forward for global cooperation on climate change. For Greenstone, he focuses on areas of policy that he can influence, and in particular on driving down the difference (delta) between the private cost of clean energy and dirty energy and looking for opportunities to leverage our policies for reductions elsewhere in the world. (57:12-59:36)
Season 1, Episode 26
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore interviews Katherine Blunt, a journalist at the Wall Street Journal and the recent author of California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas and Electric and What it Means for America’s Power Grid.
The conversation begins with the book’s narrative of criminal charges, with Blunt briefly describing the cast of characters and situations in the book that led to prosecutions for a violation of the Federal Pipeline Safety Act and 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter. The latter was one of the first situations in history in which a company was charged with homicide. (0:32-7:06)
Even with these successful criminal prosecutions, many were left with a sense of dissatisfaction. (7:07-10:30) Livermore and Blunt discuss some of the moral complexities of collective criminal liability. (10:31 – 17:45) Blunt highlights the fact that the victims compensation fund is tied to the future stock price of the company; different types of penalties have the potential to weigh on the company’s share price. The two also discuss the difficulty of recruiting new talent to work at a corporation when criminal liability may be at stake. (17:46 – 28:49)
The two move to discuss broader policy issues, including how regulated utilities receive returns on capital but not operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Blunt believes that the company had significantly underspent on O&M with serious negative consequences. (28:50 – 33:59)
Blunt discusses possibility that the charge given to PG&E — delivering safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy — might be an impossible task. (34:00 – 41:21) The two shift to the topic of renewable energy. Blunt describes California’s ambitious targets for carbon reduction. California’s early investments in wind and solar helped create the economies of scale which made these forms of energy are affordable, but California’s ratepayers paid billions of dollars for this power. (41:22 – 45:25)
Livermore asks how people in California should feel about how this has all played out. Blunt responds that California’s contribution to reducing carbon emissions is rightfully a point of pride. But as a leader in climate change efforts, California has incurred a real cost. (45:26- 49:29)
Blunt then discusses the broader implications of the PG&E story. Utilities everywhere are going to have to confront new risks as a result of climate change. PG&E’s story demonstrates that if any company has a narrative of mismanaging risk, it’s going to be very challenging to get ahead of things. The consequences of the failure of the electric system are becoming greater, in both an acute and a broader sense. There are lessons here for every region of the country. (49:30 – 52:10)
A question that comes out of the book is how bad PG&E’s risk management practices were compared to other utilities in California. Blunt highlights the inherent tension between private interests and public good, which is present in every utility company. PG&E is hardly the only utility to mismanage that. Historically, PG&E’s mismanagement has been more acute than others and the consequences have been much greater. (52:11 – 55:55)
Blunt then turns to bigger picture questions of centralized versus distributed energy. In her view, distributed technology will play a role in how we generate and consume power and it has the potential to reduce the amount of large centralized infrastructure in the future. But, it is hard for her to foresee a future without a need for centralized generation and transmission carried over large distances. The model has a lot of challenges which are becoming more acute, but there is no great solution for a substantially different model. The only solution is to work within the parameters of what we have and make it better. (55:56 – 1:01:00)
Season 1, Episode 21
On this episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with Matthew Burtner, a Professor of Compositions and Computer Technologies in the music department at the University of Virginia. Burtner’s work explores ecology and the aesthetic link between human expression and environmental systems. His latest album is Ice Field.
Burtner begins by discussion how his music tries to decenter humans. (0:51-2:29) After listeners hear a snippet from the title track, Livermore inquires about the physical logistics of how he recorded this track. (3:58 – 8:13) Burtner recalls the improvisation he did while on the ice field and describes how environmental music appreciating a new kind of beauty. (8:21 – 11:55) He goes on to explains his commitment to understanding these natural systems as independent forms of aesthetics. (12:00 – 17:30)
Burtner describes how he uses sonification to translate environmental data into sounds. He describes how sonification allows us to listen to sounds new kind of sounds, like light reflecting off waves, and to transpose temporality by taking decades worth of data and turning it into a musical phrase we can perceive. On Ice Field, two of his works use sonification, “Ice Prints” which uses ice extent data from the Arctic and is mapped into piano music and “Sonification of an Arctic Lagoon.” (17:32 – 21:20) A snippet of his track “Sonification of an Arctic Lagoon” is played. This piece takes different layers of data and creates musical sounds, this 4-minute piece is 1-year worth of data mapped into musical form. (21:21 – 23:29)
Livermore and Burtner discuss the differences between sonification and a more common impressionism approach to relating music to the natural environment. Burtner explains how data is not always what he may want it to sound like and may not be satisfying as music. He explains that you can either try to change the data, which won’t represent the system anymore, or listen to it and find the beauty. (23:31 – 29:05)
Burtner discusses different approaches to eco-acoustic music: presenting environmental data as sound (sonification), field recording natural sounds (soundscaping), and using natural features as instruments in human-environment interactions. Livermore and Burtner discuss the different technologies used in these techniques and how they are theorized. (29:15 – 36:44)
Burtner delves into his favorite examples of soundscape field recording that he has done, playing snippets of both. (36:46 – 41:53) Burtner explains that these recordings transpose our listening outside of our human centered perception. (42:00 – 46:26)
Livermore poses a question about aesthetics theory and how the relationship between the deep tradition we inherit affects our way of appreciating these types of music. Burtner explains that knowledge helps open up the world to different dimensions of aesthetics; that it becomes richer the more he learns. (46:30 – 51:26) Burtner discusses how environmental politics has unintentionally played a role with his music and that he appreciates that his music can be a part of that type of discourse. (51:27 – 55:43)
With climate change already happening, Livermore asks how much of Burtner’s work is coming to terms with these inevitable changes; Is it mourning, celebration, or are they entangled? Burtner describes that art has always given us a place to deal with tragedy, that music gives us a space to mourn. He explains that inside all of these tragedies are modes of sustainability and restoration; they don’t always have to be about loss. (55:44 – 1:00:57)
Livermore ends the episode inquiring about how listeners should approach and interact with these conceptual pieces at different layers. Burtner describes that the music is designed to be understood on its own and on another level as conceptual art. He hopes that it can be a multifaceted experience of listening. (1:01:03 – 1:05:43)
Season 1, Episode 17
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Frances Moore, a Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at UC Davis whose work focuses on climate economics. Recently, Moore was the lead author of a paper in Nature that examines an important set of feedbacks between politics and the climate system.
The discussion begins by examining the key differences between the model development by Moore and her team and other approaches. Generally, climate models take emissions as a given, or as resulting from large macro phenomenon like economic growth. The innovation of Moore’s model is to treat emissions as “endogenous” to political and social processes. Her model includes the formation of policy, which affects emissions and, therefore, the climate system (0:41 – 2:58).
Expanding more on different ways of modeling, Livermore brings up two broad approaches to climate modeling: the process used in the natural sciences, which is relied on by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) vs. the process that economists use that feeds into social policies. He poses the question of how Moore’s model fits into these two broad categories of the IPCC vs. SCC (social cost of carbon) approach in regards to climate modeling (3:00 – 4:51).
Moore’s model is distinct to both approaches. In the economist approach, a social decision maker maximizes welfare by controlling emissions over time. Moore’s model does not optimize anything (4:57 – 6:57). On the other hand, the IPCC takes a predictive approach, but without asking what policies are most likely. Moore’s model integrates policy into the predictive approach.
Moore dives further into details about the feedbacks in her paper (7:00 – 12:49). Examples of the feedbacks explored in the paper are: normative social conformity feedback; climate change perception feedback; temperature emissions feedback; and the expressive force of law feedback. Moore dives deeper into the law feedback, discussing the challenges they faced when trying to qualitative information in a quantitative way for their modeling (13:26 – 16:37). Moore and Livermore discuss different interpretations of the expressive force of law and how it might fit into a predictive model (16:46 – 22:00). Another type of feedback studied involved individual behavior. This behavior is important for global emissions only when it leads to preferences that eventually produce large-scale changes (22:01 – 28:25).
Livermore and Moore discuss the hopeful headline conclusion of Moore’s model, which is the possibility of global net zero emissions by 2080-2090, which follows a 2.3° pathway by 2100. This pathway is very similar to what the 2030-2050 emission commitments look like from the Paris Climate Agreement. Livermore notes that some of the model runs resulted in a 3-4° world. The model features of these worlds included high social norm effects, political systems with bias towards the status quo, high bias assimilations responsiveness of the political systems, and energy systems not evolving (28:35 – 39:33).
Livermore notes some of his work on climate-society feedbacks concerning the potential for climate damages to undermine conditions necessary for climate cooperation at a global scale. Moore explains why they didn’t include this feedback in the model, stating that looking at these tipping points would be involved in the next steps of extending the model (40:00 – 45:02).
Livermore brings up the topic about the philosophical differences between Moore’s fully causal model of the human climate system and other models. Moore’s goal of modeling is primarily understanding and descriptive, which differentiates it from other models. They end the episode discussing that carbon pricing over the next 5-10 years should be a good signal to tell us what type of temperature change trajectory our world will be on: one of reasonable temperature change or one of catastrophic change (50:23 – 1:00:23).
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
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 9
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 5
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).
Free Range Podcast 