politics – Free Range Podcast

Season 2, Episode 12

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus. Lazarus is the author of the book “The Making of Environmental Law”, which is now out in its second edition. One of the key takeaways from Lazarus’ book is that environmental law is especially difficult because environmental science and economics collide with the lawmaking system. Ecosystems naturally spread cause and effect out over time and space. Therefore, activities that occur in one place at one time have consequences that arise at another place and time. Regulation and lawmaking systems struggle with this because these laws regulate people at one place in time for the benefit of another group at another time, leading to substantial distributional consequences. (0:36-16:03)

The distributional effects of environmental law have also contributed to the current polarized political situation regarding environmental action. In a state like West Virginia, there were political gains to be made by the Republican party by opposing climate regulation, because of the local economic costs of reducing the nation’s reliance on coal. As the parties vie for different constituencies, polarization naturally arises when groups opposed to or supportive of environmental protection sort into the two parties. This dynamic has played out over many issues in the past decades, but environmental policy may be particularly prone. (17:50-31:05)

The two then discuss environmental justice and its ties to the polarization of environmental law. Lazarus reflects on how his view of the topic was changed when a student in his hazardous waste class inquired about his theory that waste sites are more prevalent in minority neighborhoods. That interaction ultimately led Lazarus to rethink how he approached environmental law to focus more on race, class, and fairness issues. (33:30-44:21)

The conversation wraps discussing polarization and the role of the courts. Lazarus offers his view that attention to fairness issues and the commercial opportunities presented by environmental transitions can help build a bipartisan coalition in favor of environmental protection. The two then discuss the two most recent major environmental cases in the Supreme Court: West Virginia v EPA and the Sackett case. For Lazarus, the West Virginia decision to uphold the repeal of the Clean Power Plan was irresponsible but not out of bounds; it prevented an ambitious future plan for environmental protection, which had a solid, but not unassailable, statutory basis. He sees Sackett differently because it relied on shoddy interpretation of the Clean Water Act to undermine a longstanding and successful environmental program. Despite this, Lazarus has a somewhat optimistic view of the Court. Even if it will continue to be an obstacle to executive action to protection the environment, if it is possible to pass new environmental legislation to address issues like climate change, he believes that the Court will not get in the way. (47:28-1:06:23)

Season 2, Episode 6

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Alex Wang, Professor of Law at UCLA, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and expert on the law and politics of Chinese environmental governance.

Beginning with Wang’s initial experience in environmental issues in China, the US, and the NGO community, he discusses the generational and globally formative transformation he witnessed over his three decades in the field (1:37 – 9:36). After China’s entry into the WTO, there were some expectations for a broader economic and political liberalization. While there has been an increase in marketization and economic freedom, the Communist Party has maintained tight political control (9:37-14:26). Although formal political freedom is limited in China, Wang emphasizes that there are many mechanisms through which politics occurs; he also discusses important developments in the state’s administrative law and responsiveness to citizen demands in the past several decades. Wang discusses protests, concessions, and accountability that operate through less formal means, which can be effective at mediating social conflict, even if lacking traditional procedural fairness (14:27-22:18).

The conversation highlights the difference between the US and China in regard to responsiveness to recent large-scale protests which also speaks to the extremity of Chinese policy. While rapid change is possible in China, it is core to the design of the US political system to diffuse power, which limits capacity for rapid change (22:19-35:24).

Over the last two decades, there has been a large shift toward greater prioritization of eco-civilization and environmental protection in China. This transition is at the intersection of environmental, political, and economic change. Pollution began to be seen as a governance and social stability problem. Regarding the shifting geopolitics and the changing relationship between the US and China, the level of respect towards China has gradually changed throughout Wang’s experience over the past three decades. Globally, China has taken on a much more substantial leadership role, and power in the global system has shifted away from the United States and the single dominant player. Politics, energy security, and economic opportunities played a large role in China’s investment into green technologies, where they are now dominating the supply chain (35:25-53:47).

Wang covers the human rights story, symbolic politics versus implementation, and the issue of achieving climate goals in light of economic consequences (53:48-56:41). The US and China may be in competition for the foreseeable future, so maybe this competition can be socially beneficial. But is it an open question whether this proxy battle will be enough to fuel serious decarbonization (56:42-1:04:59).

Season 2, Episode 3

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Alex Guerrero, a philosophy professor at Rutgers who writes in moral and political philosophy. Guerrero is a leading philosophical defender of the idea of lottocracy—the practice of choosing political leaders through lottery rather than elections.

The podcast begins with Guerrero’s diagnosis of the failures of our current politics and the limitations of reforms such as changes to the campaign finance system. (0:33 – 12:40) Guerrero goes on to challenge what he referred to as the “Churchillian shrug,” which is the view that there are no viable alternative to electoral democracy. For Guerrero, elections are a technology, and there is no good reason to think that there are not better options available. There is no guarantee that elections are not the ideal system, but they are imperfect, and it would be wise to be open to different ways of organizing our politics. (12:40-19:19)

One difference between today and the periods when elections took hold is that contemporary society is much more complex than in the past. As we deal with globally interconnected issues, it is much more difficult for our communities to really understand or see the effects of political decisions. In addition, elections tend to produce unrepresentative outcomes, with a small segment of economic and social elites occupying positions of political power. In an increasingly diverse society, this is a problem. Lottery selection would mean that groups that are frequently underrepresented, such as single parents or members of the working class, would have a voice in the legislature. (19:19-25:56)

The conversation turns to some of the logistics of how lotacracy would work in practice. Guerrero favors a set of single issue legislatures that would allow members to cultivate expertise. A question that remains is how executive oversight would work in a domain such as climate change where many important decisions must be made by administrative agencies. (25:56-28:47) Guerrero believes that agencies should be overseen by the legislature rather than an elected, or randomly selected, executive officer. (28:47-35:05) Broadly, agencies could operate as they do now, but with a different set of political leaders that they are accountable to. (35:05-52:31)

The attractiveness of the lotacracy idea turns in part on the people one envisions as being selected. Perhaps a randomly choses legislature would be a place where thoughtful, responsible, and diligent citizens deliberate on matters of public concern. Or, it could be cacophony of conflicting voices, with segregationists, QAnon supporters, or simply those who do not have the ability to understand the complex issues at hand vying for influence. Guerrero is optimistic and believes the lottery system cannot be much worse than the current system. Ultimately, he believes that bringing individuals from all backgrounds together to talk about political problems facilitates better discussion and engagement than what exists in our electoral system currently. (52:31-1:01-35)

Season 1, Episode 23

On this episode of Free Range, UVA Law Professor Mike Livermore speaks with Henry Skerritt, Curator of Indigenous Arts of Australia at the Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection at the University of Virginia.
Skerritt begins by introducing the Kluge-Rhue and how this collection of over 3,000 works of Indigenous Australian Art ended up at the University of Virginia. He explains that while aboriginal Australian art is the longest continuous artistic tradition in the world, it is also a contemporary movement that was used for political representation in the 20th century (0:49 – 4:50).

They discuss the connection between art and politics, explaining how aboriginal art has played a role in asserting property rights for indigenous peoples. Skerritt discusses Milirrpum v Nabalco, the first significant case for indigenous land rights in Australia, which was initiated by the Yirrkala bark petitions in the 1970s. Ultimately, the political movement spurred by the bark petitions led to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1976 and continues to have substantial influence today (4:50 – 11:00)

Livermore and Skerritt then discuss an aboriginal painting called “Djambarrpuyŋu Mäna” or “Shark of the Djambarrpuyŋu Clan” by Wilson Manydjarri Ganambarr.
Link: https://madayin.kluge-ruhe.org/experience/pieces/djambarrpuynu-mana-shark-of-the-djambarrpuynu-clan/
Skerritt discusses the relationship between the patterns and designs in the work and the cultural stories and traditions that they reference. (11:30 – 16:17). Livermore and Skerritt then discuss the relationship between contemporary Aboriginal Australian art and traditional art practices. (16:20 – 22:51).

Skerritt and Livermore then turn to the diversity of cultural traditions that inform Indigenous Australian art. He explains that these paintings have ancestral narratives, called songlines, that serve a deep narrative and cultural function, connecting people from different clans and places. He describes the songlines as the world’s most beautiful GPS system that talks about ownership and belonging (22:58 – 26:55).
They then analyze a work by Dr. Djambawa Marawili titled “Journey to America.”
Link: https://madayin.kluge-ruhe.org/experience/pieces/americalili-marrtji-journey-to-america/

They discuss the main story of Bäru, the crocodile man who brings his ancestral fire into the world. He explains that the overall message of the painting is that if the Aboriginal Australians put their art into the world, it can give them power and political representation (27:00 – 36:10).
The question is raised over the relationship between political representation versus appropriation and the difficult challenges this sometimes raises (36:11 – 43:10).

They analyze another piece by artist Noŋgirrŋa Marawili, one of the oldest painters working today.
https://madayin.kluge-ruhe.org/experience/pieces/baratjala-baratjala-2/
Her works bring up questions of tradition and innovation: it both grabs the attention of the contemporary art world and maintains connection to traditional designs and practices, speaking to two different audiences at the same time (43:12 – 49:30).

They discuss how artists today have to engage with a globally connected world, that every great artwork has to speak both to its own place and the world around it. Skerritt discusses how Aboriginal artists do not sacrifice their own unique identity to produce their works and that they insert their identities into larger dialogues of art and politics without giving up power of where they come from (49:31 – 52:13). Skerritt describes the movement as an extraordinary cross-cultural gift that teaches us the lesson that even though we may not all have the same culture or speak the same language, artists can find common ground and communicate in their own unique ways (52:15 – 57:32).

Season 1, Episode 15

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Kimberly Fields, who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s Woodson Institute of African-American and African Studies. Her recent work has focused on environmental justice, race, and inequality at the state level.

The podcast begins with Professor Fields explaining why examining environmental policy at the state level is so important, emphasizing that many of the decisions that are made to implement federal policies are made by state legislatures. This results in a significant amount of variation between states not only in how aggressively they implement those policies, but also in the extent to which they are able to do so. Expanding on the variation between states, Fields finds that a number of factors can dictate how robustly a state will enforce environmental policies, from the prevalence of grass-roots activist groups in the state and the history of the state’s approach to environmental and social justice issues to the level of autonomy that a state regulatory agency has to implement federal policies. Fields also points out how disparities in equality and social justice often reflect disparities in environmental risk. (:44 – 16:30)

This leads to a conversation about how environmental advocacy compares with other forms of advocacy, and the challenges that smaller environmental advocacy groups have faced in their efforts to ensure that their concerns remain at the forefront of the legislative agenda. Important to this is the interaction between a state’s advocacy environment – how much support advocacy groups receive – and a state’s political attitude towards that advocacy – the extent to which the state legislature is open to working with advocacy groups. Professor Fields explains that partisanship has not, in her research, been a good indicator of how robust a state’s advocacy environment is. In fact, the more accurate indicator is the presence of significant minority populations in a state’s demographic make-up. Fields points to the Delta South as a region that has a strong culture of environmental justice advocacy, despite partisan politics that would suggest otherwise. This is the case for a number of reasons, from prominent politicians who are actively involved in advocating for environmental justice to a historical legacy of environmental advocacy in the South. (16:33 – 39:02)

Fields describes the state policy making process as one that is influenced heavily by local industries and the environmental concerns surrounding those industries. States also take differing approaches to race and environmental justice, with some states taking a very proactive approach to eliminating racial dimensions of environmental inequality and others adopting more neutral language. (39:08 – 46:59)

The conversation then expands into a broader discussion of the use race-focused language in environmental justice goals, why states might choose to utilize race-neutral language, and whether a race-neutral approach can adequately address the concerns of affected groups. (47:02 – 59:37)

The conversation concludes with a discussion of whether environmental justice issues at the state level reflect the same partisan polarization as is seen on so many issues at the national level. (59:41 – 1:05:29)

Season 1, Episode 13

Transcription

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 12

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Cara Daggett, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, about her new book The Birth of Energy: Fossil Fuels, Thermodynamics, and the Politics of Work.

Daggett begins by speaking about her path to studying energy via her background in biochemistry and politics. Daggett explains that her interest in carbon — the basis of life in a scientific context but a hot-button issue in the political sphere — led to a broader awareness of how politics treat the concept of energy as fuel. This, in turn, inspired an examination of how various terms such as power and, particularly, work are thought about. (:55 – 7:45)

Livermore and Daggett discuss the relationship between politics and science. Daggett voices concerns about the treatment of policy issues as purely empirical. Using the example of the opioid crisis, Daggett argues that many people have legitimate questions about how scientific knowledge is created, and for whose benefit – failing to acknowledge and address those questions is unlikely to build trust in cases such as climate change or vaccination. (7:50 – 12:34) Livermore asks about the interaction between scientific concepts and socio-political discourse, specifically within the context of her study of thermodynamics. Daggett explains that some of the key sites of this interaction are in areas like politics and workplace management, where life itself is governed. This leads to a close reading of a paragraph from the book, in which Daggett describes what energy is and how it fits within the context of the Western understandings of work. (12:44 – 27:15) Daggett then explains how this understanding has led to a valuation of dynamism and energy in a range of areas, including modern conceptions of masculinity. (27:20 – 33:03)

The conversation then expands to include a long discussion of the relationship between thermodynamics and economic theory, particular in relation to the shared concepts of waste and work. This part of the talk touches on a range of ideas, including the natural tensions of a society that is experiencing increased automation while still valuing the concept of work itself, and whether Jeff Bezos’ flights to space are wasteful. (33:10 – 59:10)

The podcast concludes with a discussion of the “post-work perspective” in relation to environmental regulation and climate politics. (59:20 – 1:06:35)