On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore is joined by Danae Hernandez-Cortes, an economist and professor in the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University who studies environmental justice and the distributional consequences of environmental policy.
The conversation begins with a discussion of the new emphasis within environmental economics on environmental inequality, with researchers now focusing on questions related to where pollution is located with respect to disadvantaged communities and how policy affects the distribution of environmental harm. Comparing environmental inequality to general inequality is difficult to do precisely, but Hernandez-Cortes describes the distribution in environmental inequality as comparatively sharper. Race and ethnicity tend to be an additional variable, beyond income as indicator of exposure to environmental harm. Many current inequalities are the result of historical legacies of discrimination and racism. There are many moving parts when it comes to environmental inequality, and it can be hard to isolate the most important causal variables. (0:40-18:05)
Environmental inequality often correlates with other kinds of inequality where race is a factor. However, Hernandez-Cortes points out that her research suggests that health and environmental inequality are not as related as one would assume.
The conversation shifts to market-based mechanisms as solutions for mitigating environmental inequality. While they tend to have lower costs and are more efficient, Hernandez-Cortes points out that they can potentially lead to environmental disparities by reallocating pollution. The effect of market-based mechanisms on environmental inequality is theoretically ambiguous and depends on context. In her work on market-based mechanisms to control greenhouse gas emissions in California, Hernandez-Cortes has found they have actually reduced environmental inequality, despite significant skepticism from the environmental justice community.
Nevertheless, for Hernandez-Cortes, it is important to solve environmental justice problems with policies that focus on that issue even though broad environmental initiatives such as reducing aggregate pollution can sometimes reduce environmental inequality. Additionally, when it comes to policymaking, many activists look to be included in the process instead of just caring about the outcome. (18:07-47:06)
Hernandez-Cortes notes that the quality of the outcome of a policy can affect the composition of people in a place. But, to assess the role of place in environmental inequality, many details are needed as factors like housing and income also come into play. Gentrification generally only results from a policy that changes the environment significantly. Overall, environmental issues are typically multi-generational, and they interact with other place-based sources of inequality, such as housing discrimination or unequal access to schools or health care, to have long term negative consequences. At the same time, interventions to improve environmental justice can also lead to benefits far into the future, as the same dynamics play out as a virtuous cycle of improvement. (47:07-1:01:01)
Tag Archives: policy
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 29
On today’s episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with UVA Law colleague Rich Schragger a leading expert on local government, federalism, and urban policy and the author of City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age.
Schragger begins the episode by discussing the idea of ‘city power,’ which is meant to challenge the usual narratives about local governments and cities. (0:42 – 2:41)
Livermore and Schragger turn to one view, of cities as selling a suite of policies and amenities. In his book, he discusses the mistake of misinterpreting sorting as a theory of economic growth. Schragger is skeptical of claims that a city has failed because of a decrease in population, which can have other causes. He argues that even in an economic downturn, cities need to provide good municipal services. (2:44 – 10:40)
They discuss theories of growth in cities, debating if growth is a policy independent processes. Schragger elaborates on the relationship between institutions and growth, saying that they will have a relationship but at what scale? He explains his attraction to Jane Jacobs’s ideas on why economic development happens in cities. (10:45 – 18:41)
Schragger explains two common views of cities: that they are products in markets or that they are byproducts of large-scale social forces. He prefers to think of a city as a process akin to an organic phenomenon. (18:42 – 28:07)
Schragger argues that we are still radically unsure what causes economic growth in a city. He emphasizes that cities should provide basic municipal services to their people as a matter of social justice, not as a matter of growth seeking. (28:10 – 31:47) He sees the lack of control over growth as in some ways liberating. Cities are free to implement policies such has a minimum living wage, and environmental regulations because ultimately these policies will not hurt the growth of the city. (31:48 – 35:17)
The discussion transitions into the distinctions between intercity and intracity competition. Schragger talks about how city population increases/decreases are attributed to the wrong factors. He uses the example of the urban resurgence in Charlottesville wrongly being attributed to the downtown mall. (35:20 – 43:13)
Livermore poses the question about the possibility of ever truly learning how policy affects cities. Schragger re-emphasizes that cities need to invest in services that improve the living of the people already there rather than attracting new people. Schragger argues that cities should act for justice, not growth. (43:20 – 53:01)
Livermore and Schragger discuss their views on redistribution, focusing on minimum wage. Schragger says the living minimum wage movement represents a proof of concept. He describes how large cities, such as Tokyo, New York City, London, have economic power that is used to leverage location advantage to do redistribution. He compares the power differences between city states and nation states, explaining cities’ locational leverage gives them more power to tax and redistribute than nations which flips the narrative of traditional federalism. (53:10 – 1:03:26)
Livermore closes the discussion by describing states as vestigial things in our constitutional system, asking Schragger his thoughts on the value of states. Schragger agrees that US states are in some ways a product of a flawed compromise and have lost their reason for being. He explains how one can be opposed to states but in favor of cities. He expresses that state-based federalism doesn’t work because the actual divide is not between states, but between cities and rural areas in those states. (1:03:31 – 1:11:40)
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 18
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western who writes on environmental law, federalism, and regulation. In 2020, Brookings Institution Press published Adler’s edited Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane.
Livermore and Adler begin their discussion on the topic of federalism and environmental law. Generally, Adler highlights sees the federal government as best focused on transboundary issues while states focus on issues with more localized impacts (00:49 – 02:50). Adler lists several benefits of states as venues for environmental policymaking, including variation in geography, economics, and industry as well as differences in values (02:50 – 04:35). He also highlights the value of experimentation in this regard (04:35 – 05:30). Alder also notes the distinction between decentralization as a policy matter and decentralization as a legal matter (05:30 – 06:56).
Livermore notes the large role played by the federal government under existing law for locally oriented pollution. Adler offers some thoughts on the origins of this situation, mentioning the lack of jurisdictional thought when statues were passed as well as the deserved skepticism towards state and local governments as a result of the Civil Rights Movement (06:56 – 10:37). Adler hopes that today’s states are different from those in the 60s and 70s (10:37 – 10:52). Adler offers some suggestions for policy reform (12:50 – 16:35) and the two discuss potential political barriers (16:35 – 21:47).
Livermore introduces a discussion about injustice and public choice failure at the state level. He mentions our renewed emphasis on environmental justice issues, and Adler argues that while states can fail, so can the federal government (21:47 – 32:40).
Adler and Livermore turn to experimentation and state variation (32:40 – 42:01). Livermore notes his view that the Brandeisian idea of “laboratories of democracy” is inapt; that a better way to view this process is as innovation. Adler agrees with the concept of innovation and discovery, emphasizing the discovery side. It’s not experimentation in the sense that it is controlled, it is rather a discovery and learning process as a result of variation and observation (42:01 – 48:06).
Livermore requests Adler’s thoughts on federalism versus localism and decentralization more broadly. Adler responds with the idea that different communities have different priorities; there is no one size fits all. He mentions that when local communities are given autonomy and control, they often discover and innovate in ways that have important environmental benefits. In terms of legality, the extent to which this is viable varies from state to state (48:06 – 53:36).
Livermore and Adler return to the earlier, more legal discussion around litigation over climate damages. Livermore explains a recent Second Circuit decision which led to a preemption-like result, asking Adler to discuss the stakes of the difference between federal common law and state common law, displacement versus preemption, and his thoughts on the Second Circuit decision. Adler argues that, although from a policy perspective, climate change is better suited to national rather than state or local solutions, from a legal perspective, the Second Circuit’s holding that these suits were preempted was unjustified (53:36 – 1:02:34).
The final question the two discuss is the intersection between environmental federalism and political polarization. Adler argues that principled federalism can help depolarize because it can lessen the stakes. Unnecessary centralization magnifies polarization. Adler is careful not to generalize, recognizing that there is no one answer that will solve everything. However, he states that if we can allow centralization and decentralization where they are most fit, we might be a few steps closer to arriving at agreement on environmental policy (1:02:34 – 1:07:52).
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 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).
Free Range Podcast 