pollution – 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 1, Episode 25

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Jonathan Colmer, an Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia’s Department of Economics and the Director of the Environmental Inequality Lab. His research interests are in environmental economics, development economics, and the distributional impacts of environmental policy.

Colmer begins by discussing a recent paper of his that examines the distributional characteristics of air pollution in the United States and how they have changed over time. Tracking exposure temporally and spatially, they concluded that while there have been air pollution reductions in the last four decades, the disparities have persisted in the same affected areas. (0:40 – 4:15)

Livermore and Colmer discuss the implications of this work for understanding environmental inequality. Colmer explains that the proportional reductions have implications on the allocation of resources we expend on reducing pollution. He also note that reducing total pollution levels also reduces absolute disparities of racial gaps in air pollution. (4:16 – 13:00)

Livermore notes that addressing harms in areas with the highest pollution concentrations would provide the cheapest reductions and the most harm reduction benefits. The two discuss different policies to cut pollution and their distributional effects. (13:02 – 18:35)

Colmer notes that one limitation of his prior work is that they are measuring place rather than individual exposure. The Environmental Inequality Lab, which he directs, has the goal of moving from a place-based to a person-based understanding of environmental inequality. The lab is building a data infrastructure that provides detailed information on the distribution of exposure from many different environmental hazards. Colmer explains how they use confidential data from the U.S. Census Bureau and I.R.S. to deeper understand environmental inequality and the causes of these disparities. (18:40 – 26:15)

Livermore and Colmer discuss the idea of ecological fallacy in Colmer’s research, observing whether or not the inferences made about individuals using place-based data still hold strong when they move to the individual level. (26:20 – 30:57)

Colmer discusses the questions that arise about the causes of these air pollution disparities from an economic standpoint – is it income? Is it racial discrimination or other considerations? He discusses work in progress that shows how results on disparities differ between geographic-level results and individual-level results. (31:02 – 40:55)

The conversation segues from discussing the descriptive to the causal relationships with pollution. Colmer discusses a core causal question they are examining: how much does environmental inequality contribute to income inequality? (40:56 – 56:35)
Livermore closes the discussion by pointing out how historically, we focus on the primary benefit of air quality improvements by the reduction of mortality risk which affects a small concentrated category of people. However, the work Colmer is doing focuses on effects that are more widely shared over a larger population, which may have important consequences for how policies that address environmental pollution are perceived. (56:36 – 1:01:18)

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)