conservation – Free Range Podcast

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 2, Episode 1

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore is joined by Laura Candiotto, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pardubice in the Czech Republic. Candiotto’s recent paper, “Loving the Earth by Loving a Place,” serves as the starting point for the conversation in today’s episode.

Candiotto begins by highlighting how her understanding of loving nature differs from common usage. She argues that if we take up the love of nature in a casual way, we cannot really appreciate its moral and political value. Candiotto mentions that she begins with the account of love as care. It is not just a feeling of enjoyment, but caring about this subject’s well-being. She also mentions the value account, entailing that we appreciate some qualities, specific features, and intrinsic value of the object. Next, there is the fusion account of love, which spells out the idea that when we love, we really want to be one with our beloved. Often, this leads to the idea that love is an idea of oneness with the other. Candiotto accepts the care and value accounts but challenges the fusion or universal account (0:54 – 5:44).

Livermore and Candiotto then turn to the role of philosophy in understanding a phenomenon like love of nature. Candiotto argues that philosophy is a practice. The goal is to understand how we’re using these words to provide clarity about what we’re talking about while articulating a vision of what our relationship could be. Philosophy in this context entails an ethical transformation of self betterment. (5:45 – 12:42) Her aim is starting from specific contexts to get to the universal perspective. (12:43-14:23)

Candiotto further explores the problems with the fusion model of love. Candiotto argues that we miss a lot by reaching for oneness. We miss rich biodiversity, otherness, mystery, uniqueness, and the value that comes with difference. (14:24-22:47)

The conversation then turns to the concept of meaning-making. (22:48-31:40) Candiotto claims that this process is participatory and has to do with the development of certain attitudes. There is a natural connection to love because both require an other-oriented perspective. (31:41-34:47) If we maintain a dualistic assumption that nature is just a resource or just other, we are underestimating the value of this fundamental process of interdependent autonomy. (34:48-39:19)

The two turn to the question of listening in the participatory sense making process (39:20-49:10) and to the question of whether loving nature is essential to a good life. (49:11-56:20) The conversation ends by discussing the relationship between the love of nature and a global environmental movement able to lead to broad political change. (56:21-1:03:25)

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 1

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Dr. Deborah Lawrence, a Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, about her research on land use and the connection between deforestation and climate change. In this discussion, Lawrence provides an in-depth explanation of the role forests play in affecting the global climate and then discusses how climate scientists use mathematical modeling to project the future of climate change.

Professor Lawrence begins by describing how she developed her interdisciplinary approach to studying land use, which she calls “Food, Fuels and Forests” (2:30 – 5:30). This approach recognizes that the surface of the earth is a finite good, so the decision to use a part of it for one thing necessarily means it is not being used for another. Lawrence and Livermore then discuss the current state of carbon capture technology (5:55 – 13:25).

Professor Lawrence explains that one of the fundamental flaws in most climate change models is the fact that almost every model relies on carbon capture and sequestration technology that is either unproven (direct air capture) or prohibitively expensive (like BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage). The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the importance of forests in relation to climate change on both a global and local scale, with Professor Lawrence offering a detailed explanation of the process through which forests cool the planet (15:00 – 24:15). Lawrence then explains the role of modeling in climate change science, generally, and in her work specifically (24:30 – 44:35).

Finally, Professor Lawrence provides insight into her research on land use, how land use decisions fit within the broader considerations of climate change science, and the benefits of approaching land use questions from a multidisciplinary perspective (45:00 – 59:45).