science – Free Range Podcast

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 16

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Dale Jamieson, a Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at New York University. His most recent book, Discerning Experts, was published in 2019 by the University of Chicago Press.

The discussion begins with an examination of the tension between animal welfare and environmental ethics. Jamieson traces this tension back to the origins of environmental advocacy and the development of environmental law. This tension is best exemplified by the idea that animals often cause suffering to other animals, yet it is widely accepted that humans should not intervene to prevent the suffering of a gazelle when it has been caught by a lion. This leads to a discussion of the action-inaction dichotomy — the idea that letting something occur is not as bad as causing the same thing to occur — and a broader consideration of what the study of ethics involves, what its aims are, and why we engage with it. (:49 – 16:09)

Expanding on the concept of human intervention in nature, Professor Livermore asks whether our ability to effectively intervene has gone beyond the limits of our ethical comprehension. Professor Jamieson suggests that what has actually occurred is that humanity now undervalues the importance of small actions while overestimating the significance of large actions, before touching on how this attitude has affected public policy regarding not only the environment but, more generally, individual moral responsibility. Jamieson points out that the consensus-based view of government that characterized the era in which environmental policy was developed no longer applies to the climate change conversation. (16:11 – 32:05)

This expands to a question of the role of cosmopolitanism in environmental policy, and the process of translating societal values into policy. After discussing the relationship between values consensus and technocratic governance, Jamieson points out the poor quality of current democratic discourse and the potential for public deliberation to address values conflict. Using the example of the Senate filibuster, Livermore raises the concern that in deliberative institutions, those acting in good faith are often manipulated and subsumed by those acting in bad faith. Jamieson raises questions about the interaction of participation, politics, and successful governance in democracies and authoritarian regimes. (32:10 – 49:36)

Relating this to the concept of unforeseen consequences, Livermore points out that advances in technology have, it would appear, empowered authoritarian regimes while simultaneously weakening democratic societies. Jamieson connects this to some of his recent work, which examines the shifting nature of regulation in the wake of so many different industries moving online. Jamieson and Livermore then discuss the role of the state and perceptions about the ability of the state to address pressing social concerns like climate change. (49:40 – 1:01:47)

The conversation ends with a brief examination of Elon Musk’s attempt to purchase Twitter, before Jamieson concludes with an anecdote about what he hopes for in the future. (1:01:52 – 1:05:45)

Season 1, Episode 14

Transcription

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 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)

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).