Free Range with Mike Livermore

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Natalie Jacewicz, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. Livermore and Jacewicz discuss here forthcoming paper, "Crafting a New Conservationism." In that paper, Jacewicz examines a fundamental tension in environmental law: the conflict between protecting ecological collectives like species and ecosystems, and safeguarding individual animals. Through analysis of over one hundred National Environmental Policy Act documents, she reveals how federal agencies navigate competing mandates when implementing wildlife management programs. The discussion explores how marquee conservation statutes, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, contain dual commitments to both collective and individual animal protection, yet provide little guidance for resolving conflicts between these goals. Jacewicz identifies systematic inconsistencies in how agencies approach these tensions, ranging from complete disregard for individual animals to positive duties of care. The conversation concludes by examining potential frameworks for incorporating animal welfare concerns into conservation policy more systematically.

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Adam Ortiz, the MidAtlantic regional administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. The conversation begins with a discussion of the role of a regional administrator at EPA. Ortiz emphasizes the importance of federal agencies working with local and state governments due to the complexity of environmental issues. He also discusses some of the specific challenges of the MidAtlantic: it is a coastal region with a rich industrial past; an agricultural region; and, a region where resource extraction has been prevalent. Taken together, the diversity of histories, industries, and geographies make the MidAtlantic a fascinating and challenging region for environmental governance. The topic switches to environmental justice-related work and an ongoing Superfund cleanup in the city of Baltimore clean-up. The two discuss the value of redeveloping areas that experienced environmental damage in the past, especially given the concentration of these sites along lines of race and class. Ortiz discusses EPA's efforts to identify and clean up these sites to “plug them back into society.” There is a large human component to this kind of work, and Ortiz emphasizes the importance of giving communities a voice and encouraging open, honest dialogue with residents. This is one of the main ways the EPA addresses the negative impacts of redevelopment, such as gentrification. They go on to discuss how EPA works with state and local actors on complex projects with many overlapping jurisdictions. (0:28-34:30) The conversation shifts to the ways Ortiz's department works to support indigenous tribes. The EPA works with tribes to support their sovereignty, protect their land, and help facilitate their capacity for environmental governance. Livermore then inquires about the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water that has been of great concern to the EPA in recent years. Water quality has been improved overall, although progress hasn't been linear, and EPA has only limited authority as a federal agency. Because of this, pollution control falls heavily on nearby states, and Ortiz points to recent efforts by the states of Pennsylvania and Virginia. The conversation turns to the intersection of politics and environmental governance at the regional level. Livermore asks whether regional governance faces less political polarization, and Ortiz observes that, compared to the national level, regional interactions are often less politicized. Ortiz praises a personal approach to solving complex issues, asserting the effectiveness of working with people directly and getting to know them personally. Additionally, there is a local advantage when it comes to political support for environmental initiatives, because people tend to care about places they interact with, regardless of political affiliation. (34:31-1:01:09)

This bonus episode is an impromptu roundtable discussion that was part of a working group at the Santa Fe Institute in February 2024 on biodiversity and the sustainable development goals. The Santa Fe Institute is an interdisciplinary research institute dedicated to the study of complex adaptive systems. It was founded in 1984 by a group of scientists, many affiliated with with the Los Alamos National Laboratory. SFI host a range of gatherings at different scales, form public conferences to small working groups. This working group was organized by two SFI affiliated scholars: Andy Dobson who is a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, an evolutionary anthropologist who is at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They group included scholars and practitioners from the social and behavioral sciences, conservation biology and ecology and law. The focus on the group was the question of how to jumpstart progress on halting biodiversity loss in the context of the the UN sustainable development goals. The conversation in this podcast is with several members in the working group. The others in the conversation were Liam Smith, an expert in behavioral change and the director of BehaviorWorks Australia at Monash University; Tim O'Brien, an ecologist who worked for decades at the Wildlife Conservation Society; Margaret Kinnaird, an ecologist and the Global Wildlife Practice Leader at the World Wildlife Fund for Nature – International; Matt Turner, a post-doc and expert on computational modeling at the Stanford School of Sustainability; and Tim Caro, an evolutionary ecologist at the University of Bristol.

In this solo episode, host Mike Livermore discusses the career of Dick Stewart, a mentor who was a longtime faculty member at NYU Law who died this past year. Livermore describes two important political developments in the twenty years since he met Stewart: the breakdown a functioning bipartisan coalition on environmental issues, and the decline of the "liberal international" order based on strong transnational institutions, free trade, and expanding human rights. These developments have helped contribute to a "reformation" of U.S. environmental law (a reference to Stewart's famous law review article "The Reformation of American Administrative Law). The summer of 2022 marked the true sea change, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Supreme Court's West Virginia v. EPA decision. Livermore discusses how this reformation has reshaped the emphasis of policy debates over U.S. environmental law. The first is a shift in emphasis from efficiency to distribution. The second is a shift from instrument choice (command-and-control versus market mechanisms) to industrial policy. The third is a shift from questions about administrative governance to a more basic debate of "pro-" versus "anti-" administration. The fourth is a shift from debates about how best to structure cooperative federalism to an ongoing struggle with antagonistic federalism. Livermore offers some thoughts on the future grounds for both intra- and inter-party disagreement on U.S. environmental issues. Within the Democratic party, debates between environmentalists, energy developers, and labor unions were suppressed in the lead up to the passage of the IRA, but they have resurfaced in the context of siting reform and individual energy projects. These debates are likely to play an important role within the party in coming years. Within the Republican party, there is an increasing need to expand the party base, especially among younger voters, and the question is whether it is possible to square a more pro-environment approach with the party's new right-wing-populism platform; perhaps via policies such as carbon border adjustments or a cap-and-dividend policy that is pitched as an anti-immigration measure. At the global level, increased nationalism and renewed tension are likely to increase energy competition. While this competition may increase incentives to invest in cleaner sources, an "energy independence" mindset also increases the cost of new technologies (through anti-trade policies) and encourages development of domestic fossil fuel sources. Overall, political developments in the past twenty years have dimmed hopes for substantial policies that substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions. But one lesson from the reflections in the podcast is that politics is highly unpredictable, and trends that seem certain now may end up being less stable than they appear.

In this episode of the Free Range Podcast, host Michael Livermore is joined by guest Cale Jaffe, director of the Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law. The conversation touches on several key issues in environmental scholarship and pedagogy. A theme of the conversation is the relationship between lawyers and communities in environmental disputes. Jaffe argues lawyers must approach communities with humility and truly listen to their goals and concerns. Environmental fights should be led by impacted residents rather than lawyers parachuting in with prescribed legal strategies. Jaffe shares an example opposing a Virginia coal plant where he took a top-down approach that alienated local community members. Jaffe's experience connects to debates within environmental justice scholarship around procedure versus substance. Jaffe emphasizes that inclusive processes must have power - community input should shape project outcomes. Mere listening without willingness to change plans is insufficient. Centering community voice and leadership is critical for just environmental policymaking. Livermore and Jaffe also discuss the role of disagreement within the environmental community. Oten, the major groups adopt unified stances to maximize resources and influence. However, these unified stances often mask internal disagreement on issues like nuclear power. There are no easy answers balancing coordination and open dissent. In terms of environmental clinical pedagogy, Jaffe aims to develop wisdom in students rather than just technical skills. He stresses genuinely connecting with students as people first. He does so through blending classroom and practical work which helps model community lawyering goals like humility and listening. The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic allows engagement on varied issues of intellectual and social importance rather than just organizational priorities.

On this episode of the Free Range Podcast, host Mike Livermore has a conversation with literary scholar Nicholas Allen about his recent book "Ireland, Literature and the Coast: Seatangled". The discussion begins with an examination of the book's evocative title. Allen explains that the phrase “seatangled” comes from a scene in James Joyce's “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man,” where the character Stephen Dedalus looks out at the seaweed shreds in the ocean as he contemplates his future. For Allen, this image captures the ideas of motion, flight, and piecing things together that are central to his analysis of Irish literature through the lens of the sea and coastline. The core of the book consists of close readings of authors, artists and specific works related to Irish coastal life and culture. Allen elaborates that he chose works that have long been stuck in his imagination, ranging from an early 20th century novel about a shipping clerk to the coastal maps created by artist Tim Robinson. His aim was not to be comprehensive but rather to highlight neglected or forgotten histories and show their continued cultural presence. In discussing his critical approach, Allen emphasizes that he is less interested in making definitive arguments and more interested in creating rhythms and connections that allow readers to see texts differently. He wants to find a descriptive language that conveys sensation and experience without colonizing or containing its subject. This pursuit of openness, empathy and freedom guides his writing. The conversation explores how the coast features as both literal place and literary metaphor in the book. Other topics include the creative aspects of literary criticism, the meaning of “critical thinking,” placing Irish literature in a global context, the complications of national literature as a category, and Allen's surprising archival discoveries while researching the book. Allen illuminates a fluid, interconnected approach to Irish literature that breaks down boundaries and expands perspectives.

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Robinson, a senior research scientist and the deputy director at the Center for Health at the Harvard School of Public Health. Lisa is a leading expert in the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate public policy. The conversation begins with a discussion of the use of cost-benefit analysis and its importance in policy making. Robinson describes cost-benefit analysis as a systematic framework to examine policy impacts, which can help inform the choices made by political decision makers. Often, there are substantial uncertainties in analysis, which means that they do not deliver highly precise estimates. That said, the analytic process often generates useful information that can improve a policy. (0:11-5:22) The two then discuss controversies surrounding cost-benefit analysis. Controversies include how to value morality risk reduction through tools like the “value of statistical life.” Robinson discusses her view that the term “value of statistical life” is misleading, because actually most rules affect very small risks that are experienced by large populations. Robinson also emphasizes the non-paternalistic nature of cost-benefit analysis, because it is based on how people actually value effects in the world. (5:22-25:56) Robinson then describes how cost-benefit analysis has become complex over time which makes it difficult for the public to understand, and therefore analysts need to improve communication with non-experts. There are also empirical challenges surrounding this topic, with rising debates around accounting for distributional effects of this analysis. Often the effects of cost-benefit analysis are unevenly spread, causing issues for disadvantaged groups and enforcing the relevancy of value judgments. Overall, cost-benefit analysis informs decisions but does not dictate them. It provides useful information, but there are limitations such as legal constraints. More work is needed to extend and refine the framework across policy areas. Despite its difficulties, for Robinson, overall cost-benefit analysis contributes to good policy decisions that improve social welfare. (25:56-59:53)

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Leif Wenar, professor of philosophy at Stanford University and author of Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World. Wenar first delves into his argument that the “resource curse” arises when natural resource wealth correlates with authoritarianism, conflict, and corruption. He explains this results from international rules allowing whoever controls resources to sell them legally, thereby empowering dictators and militias. Consumers are thus complicit in funding coercion through everyday purchases. To counter this, Wenar contends we should reform the rules to only allow purchasing natural resources from governments minimally accountable to their people. He provides specific civil liberties criteria to make this accountability judgment, noting countries like Brazil have already pursued such legislation. Beyond pragmatism, Wenar argues this principled reform based on popular sovereignty would prevent our complicity in suffering and reflect our professed ideals (0:37-28:13). This relates to Wenar's philosophical work on “unity theory” - the view that intrinsic goodness lies in unity of one's will with the world, unity amongst people, and unity within oneself. Acts like cruelty and domination exemplify disunity and are intrinsically bad, while kindness and altruism reflect unity and are intrinsically good. Love represents the pinnacle of unity's value. Applied to resources, the status quo divides countries against themselves and pits the West against other nations in lose-lose conflicts. Though divisions abound, Wenar finds hope that humanity's growing cooperation and stability suggest we are gradually unifying more over time. Ultimately, we should change unjust rules which divide peoples from their resources in order to build a more unified world. This connects to Wenar's foundational value theory. He argues prevailing accounts based on pleasure or desire satisfaction fail to capture much of what we view as intrinsically good and bad. Unity better explains the full range of our value judgments, from the innate badness of spite and cruelty, to the essential goodness of love and altruism. Reform to unite people and resources is thus both pragmatic and philosophically grounded in a robust theory of value (28:14- 1:07:00).

On this episode Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown University and former Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy during the Obama administration. The focus of the episode is centered around major Supreme Court decisions on environmental law over the past two decades. The two begin by discussing Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case where the Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Heinzerling explains that during the Bush administration, the EPA denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gases, arguing it lacked authority and did not want to regulate. Environmental groups challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act's broad definition of “air pollutant” (0:00-7:54). The pair then discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA established clear statutory authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and shaped the Obama administration's regulatory actions. Fifteen years later, and after a complicated procedural history, the Supreme Court reviewed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In that case, in striking contrast to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia, the Court also embraced the “major questions doctrine,” which presumes against broad agency regulatory authority on major policy issues (7:55-27:40). On the Clean Water Act, Heinzerling and Livermore trace a similar pattern. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Court upheld federal jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, but the recent Sackett v. EPA (2022) severely restricted federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (27:41- 40:01). Heinzerling expresses concern that the current Supreme Court's skepticism of agency regulation will constrain executive and agency actions to address environmental problems like climate change. She finds the road traveled in just less than two decades from Massachusetts v. EPA to be “sobering.” Livermore concludes by noting that although some environmentalists believe that the courts could be a useful venue for promoting a strong response to climate change, with the current Court, that seems highly unlikely (40:02-56:45).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Jess Locke, an associate professor of philosophy at Loyola University, Maryland. She studies Buddhism, Western psychology, and cross-cultural philosophy. Locke's interest in Buddhism is both personal and scholarly. She has a longstanding contemplative practice, and when she began her PhD program in philosophy at Emory, her goal was to engage with Buddhism from a Western philosophical perspective. Locke discusses how her work as a philosopher working with Buddhist ideas differs from how scholars in religious studies departments approach some of the same material. For Locke, religious studies scholars often take a historiographical and anthropological perspective on religious traditions, whereas she is interested in using philosophy to interrogate the ideas in a more general way. (0:00-10:59). Locke then discusses the difference between cultural appropriation and cross-cultural engagement when approaching Buddhist traditions. Over the past several decades, a mutual process of exchange across Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions -- especially in the West -- has opened up. This exchange has created a new frontier in the long history of Buddhism, which has spent centuries traveling, adapting to and blending in with different histories and cultural contexts. One important recent thread in Buddhism focuses on social engagement and how Buddhist principles like interdependence and impermanence to contemporary social issues like environmentalism. Some see this as distorting traditional Buddhism, while others argue Buddhism must adapt to new circumstances. (10:59-38:50). The conversation wraps up with the contrast between Western and Eastern ethics. Locke explains how in Western culture, there is a larger focus on obligations and rights. For Locke, Buddhism is more concerned about ethical reflection and transformation than articulating a set of universal rules of conduct. In the environmental context, that might mean focusing on the relationship humans have with the environment rather than specifying the correct way to approach any given environmental problem. That said, Buddhism does not automatically lead to ethical behavior, as seen in some historical and contemporary examples like Japanese Zen nationalism and the persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar. There can be gaps between doctrine and how ideas manifest in society. Overall, Buddhism offers resources for rethinking the relationship between humans and nature, but does not represent a magic solution to ethical issues (38:50-1:02:06).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lee Fennell, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of Slices and Lumps: Division and Aggregation in Law and Life,. The conversation begins with a discussion of the role of aggregation in law. Fennell explains that in many other contexts, resources only provide value when they are combined into usable chunks. Property law can be understood as balancing two competing concerns – facilitating the aggregation of recourses to create value (on the one hand), and avoid too much aggregation, which can create opportunities for free-riding (0:36-18:13). Fennell explains how property law helps individuals and groups create stream of benefits. Property law is distinctive, in part, because it involves the concept of ownership. But property's traditional model of ownership doesn't always fit modern needs to solve new collective action problems. Ideally, property owners have some power over their property – and confidence that their rights will remain stable, while also not being able to impede how things are put together for the greater good. Stability is important for property owners, but the world is dynamic. Culturally, there's a conflict between the idea that property ownership involves absolute control and the reality that it's constrained by regulations and external factors. A major challenge for the future is to redefined concept of property in a way that's more adaptable but still aligns with people's expectations of stability. One solution could involve allowing ownership interests over certain benefits (like housing) but not fixed to a specific physical footprint (like a particular house), providing flexibility while maintaining stability (18:14- 37:35). Fennell is interested in how private and entrepreneurial efforts can work alongside existing property concepts to find ways to address challenges. This includes utilizing law to facilitate voluntary transactions and dynamic property management. However, Livermore points out that government coercion is inherent to property law. Fennell describes the challenge as transitioning from traditional property expectations to more flexible models that encourage voluntary interactions and entrepreneurial solutions, adapting property arrangements to address today's urban and environmental challenges. In reimagining property systems, two major changes could be considered: first, making property ownership less permanent and allowing for adjustments; second, moving away from fixed geographic locations and making property rights more dynamic. This could involve creating options for property ownership that can be called back or reconfigured under certain conditions and enabling more flexibility and collaboration among owners for potential redevelopment. Another approach might involve concentrating property under a single owner who can then rearrange holdings, but this approach comes with its own challenges of concentration and scale. These ideas aim to introduce more adaptability and responsiveness to property systems while still maintaining individual ownership. Lastly, addressing inequality through property involves considering how services are created and distributed, as political decisions and public goods shape property's value and impact; illuminating these dynamics can help reveal alternative ways to configure property for a more equitable outcome (37:36- 1:02:27).

On this episode of Free Range Podcast, host Mike Livermore is joined by Sabeel Rahman, a professor at Cornell Law School with substantial public policy experience, including as president of the think tank Demos and as senior counselor and then later as the acting Administrator in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Biden administration. Rahman is also the author of the book “Democracy Against Domination” amongst other works. Livermore and Rahman begin by placing his book within recent historical context, from the 2008 financial crisis that renewed attention to economic inequality, to the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, which substantially emphasized attacks on the regulatory estate. For Rahman, he argues that the technocratic, managerial approach to governance that was promoted by many liberals in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis lack the moral resources to truly respond to the political moment, creating an opportunity for Donald Trump to propose an alternative. Rahman also discusses his view that the challenge of the modern economy is not income inequality, but rather that problem of power and domination. (0:48-10:51) In his book, Rahman is also interested in emphasizing historical ideas that have lost currency, including by thinkers such as Louis Brandeis and John Dewey, that focused on how to construct a democratic system in light of economic power. These ideas have been picked up by modern scholars and policy makers such as Lina Khan and Jed Purdy. The book also discusses how norms of democratic governance interact with the administrative state. (10:51-23:40) The conversation turns to questions related to expertise, the role of interest group bargaining in the administrative process, and the potential for broader participation. (23:40-36.49) They discuss participatory mechanisms such as citizen assemblies, lottocracy, and existing cooperative federalist approaches. (36.49-40:10) The final segment of the podcast focuses on Rahman's time at Demos and in the Biden administration. (40:10-1:07) Rahman discusses the role of the civil service in a robust democracy, the need for civil society, and some steps that the Biden administration has taken to facilitate community participation in federal decision making. The conversation ends with a discussion of the complex interplay between deliberation, participation, and the necessary exercise of political power in the real world.

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental law at Berkeley and the co-director for the Berkeley Institute for Parks, People, and Diversity. Doremus has a interdisciplinary background with a PhD in Plant Physiology from Cornell in addition to her JD. For Doremus, one of the benefits of an interdisciplinary educational experience is that it has helped her to better understand what questions different disciplines are able to address and what questions they may not have thought to ask. In our approach to answering conservation questions, we need to reevaluate what our goals are in order to decide how to achieve them. At the start of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, crucial questions, including fundamental questions concerning the nature of a species, and our risk tolerance and willingness to commit social resources to conservation, were either not understood or were seen as better addressed later. A further contemporary challenge is that the ESA was not framed to protect the proportion of species that are at risk today. One consequence of the Anthropocene is an increasingly number of species under protection, which means greater limits on individual and commercial activity. Doremus believes that congressional intervention will become more common as the number of ESA controversies increases (6:44-23:34). Due to the tendency of politics to act as a set of competing performances, Congress is not the place we should start the conversation about reconsidering our conservation approach. Rather it should begin in academia, where crucial interdisciplinary discussions can happen. Academics can generate an updated consensus of the public's opinion on biological conservation (23:35-46:27). Even if conservation goals were agreed upon, there would still be many questions about how to achieve those goals. To what extent should humanity take the role of the world's gardeners? Who gets to decide what the garden looks like? How much control should we have over species in order to achieve our conservation goals? What are the obligations of the public to pay for the conservation that it wants? These are all complex political and scientific questions that will have to be answered in order to make legitimate progress in conserving the biological world (46:28-1:02:10).

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. On 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 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)

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by UVA Law professors Quinn Curtis and Mitu Gulati, as well as UNC-Chapel Hill Law professor Mark Weidemaier, all experts in the regulation of financial markets, to discuss new paper, Green Bonds and Empty Promises. A wide range of institutions borrow within the bond market, including municipalities, corporations, and sovereign nations. The essence of a bond is a set of promises, which include repayment terms and limits on opportunistic behavior by debtors. One new feature of the bond market is the rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing. ESG is widespread within the mutual fund industry, but has found a place in the bond market as well. But there is a difference between investing in the environment through stocks and through bonds. Stocks allow the investor to earn more as companies gain wealth by adapting to climate change, but bonds are paid back at a fixed rate of return, so the risk and return equation is different. Green bonds are a type of bond that is associated with environmental projects, but the actual language in bonds dealing with sustainability or environmental performance is often vague. This was one of the major research findings in Green Bons and Empty Promises – purportedly environmentally friendly bonds don't actually limit how the borrower can spend the borrowed money (0:50-27:58). To understand the market for green bonds, Gulati, Curtis, and Weidemaier began by defining the category “green.” For this, they relied on third party databases that are used throughout the industry when investors are building ESG portfolios. Issuers likely determined their own categorization, essentially deciding whether their own bonds would be listed as “green.” The green label matters because these bonds might have a lower interest rate, referred to as a green premium, although research indicates that any green premium that does exist is very small. But, green bonds do appear to enjoy a some benefit in terms of liquidity because many investor want to show their clients environmental responsibility. After collecting a sample of green bonds, the team then investigated the actual promises found in them. Interestingly, their research found that green bonds generally do not possess legally enforceable commitments to use proceeds for environmental projects. Interview research found that many know the “green” label is PR and don't expect the status quo to improve. (27:59-57:56). The conversation wraps up with the methods in which the situation can be addressed, and all four provide their opinions. Weidemaier explains that legal enforceability would remove the market's liquidity, transforming it to an affinity bond market that is no longer fungible. Another option is to simply kill the market, since green branding can still happen but then no one is misled on such a scale. Curtis believes that there is some room for improvement, as certifiers can begin considering legal enforceability and the market would inevitably become smaller, but more credible. This theory depends on the sincerity of the investors' demand. Gulati considers the green bond market to have the potential to evolve into something better, since it is currently booming and the way it operates is unique. Livermore describes significant environmental improvements as being made mostly through policy, so the value in private markets is mainly that they raise awareness for climate change and may aid in a cultural shift to support pro-environmental policy (57:57-1:09:20).

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Vanderbilt law professor Ganesh Sitaraman and University of Pennsylvania law professor Shelley Welton. Both guests are experts in regulatory policy and are co-authors of a new case book Networks, Platforms, and Utilities. Case books serve as the academic bedrock of law school classes. They are collections of seminal cases that facilitate the understanding of a specific field of law. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities collects primary source material that cover infrastructure areas such as transportation, communications, energy, finance, and technology. The subject of regulated industries has fallen away as a law school class in recent decades, but the industries did not disappear, nor did an important role for law and regulation. Networks, Platforms, and Utilities is intended to revitalize this area of teaching and scholarship (0:45-23:36). One key distinction that helps structure the conversation on regulation is the difference between economic and social regulation. Economic regulation essentially overseas an industrial area, generally with the purpose of managing a natural monopoly. Social regulation addresses a wider range of political purposes, including addressing externalities such as pollution. In both types of regulation, questions of governance, democratic accountability, and social justice are present. And, of course, these two categories sometimes overlap (23:37-31:51). Net metering is an examples of a case of economic regulation that is also intertwined with broader social issues, particularly climate change, given the effects of that policy on renewable energy adoption (31:52-39:17). Many of the cases covered in the book interact with antitrust law. In utilities-related cases, introducing competition as a remedy is not an appropriate solution for the marketplace. In situations creating competitive markets is not feasible, there is a second set of tools that can help achieve social goals in regulated, non-competitive markets. In these cases, the democratic process helps determine what goals the regulator should try to achieve (39:18-54:48). Livermore, Sitaraman, and Welton discuss how to deliberate over these issues. One key question is whether it is possible to have robust participation when many of the questions regulators face are highly technical. Welton ends by discussion a hopeful example of powerful public participation is a series of conversations held by the New York Public Service Commission with low income ratepayers across New York. In her view, these individuals, who engaged in a particular governance process, were able to tell their stories and eventually push New York to adopt a different method of pricing electricity (54:49-1:04:11). Overall, Sitaraman and Welton are optimistic that the current political movement is shifting in favor of greater economic regulation, so that the law examined in Networks, Platforms and Utilities will only grow in coming years.

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Jenny Kendler, the artist in residence with NRDC. Kendler is an artist and activist whose work focuses on climate change and biodiversity loss. The conversation begins with a discussion of one of Kendler's ongoing works, Amber Archive. To draw attention to the anthropogenic loss of biodiversity, this piece represents an imagined future where humanity is interested in undoing the harm that has been done. There are a number of energy intensive, high-tech initiatives in place to preserve DNA of threatened species, but Kendler imagines a more ancient and analog way (0:46-9:33). The next work Livermore and Kendler discuss is Underground Library, which represents a library composed of discarded and unread books that sample the history of nonfiction works on climate change. This piece surveys what we've known about the state of the climate and how that knowledge has been dismissed. Many of these books went unread and were discarded from libraries as a result. Kendler uses a method of burning known as biochar to burn and eventually bury the books, representing their destruction and simultaneous preservation (9:34-17:48). The Bewilder project highlights butterfly and moth eye spots which are not their eyes, but act as a decorative camouflage to evade predators. This piece serves as a biomimicry strategy inspired by activists who publish guides on how to disrupt facial recognition technology. The next piece is Birds Watching, which is a 40-foot sculpture that depicts 100 eyes of birds that are threatened or endangered by climate change. This piece is intended to represent the birds' gaze upon us, leading viewers to question their relationship to these animals (17:49-29:21). Studies for Bioremediation is a series of photo collages with a relationship to problematic monuments in Richmond, VA. Bioremediation allows for plants or living creatures to remove toxicity from a site. Creating a physical representation of this metaphor, Kendler implemented the idea of planting Kudzu, a quick-growing plant, at the base of the statues and letting nature do the work. The next piece is Music for Elephants, which is a restored 1921 vintage player piano with an all ivory keyboard. The music is based on data from scientists that work on elephant poaching. The keyboard plays a note for each month based on the amount of elephants that might die. This piece has a temporal existence as it unfolds through time, similar to extinction itself (29:22-48:52). Kendler's art is organically arising, stemming from a deeply research driven process. She finds a synchronization between the concept and the material which is very carefully articulated. Her work is always about culture change, as she emphasizes the importance of a contemporary moment that requires all of us to rise in whatever ways we can (49:53-1:01:52). Amber Archive: https://jennykendler.com/section/480968-Amber-Archive.html Underground Library: https://jennykendler.com/section/457238-Underground-Library.html Bewilder: https://jennykendler.com/section/436164-Bewilder%20%28Deimatic%20Eyespot%20Camouflage%29.html Birds Watching: https://jennykendler.com/section/466865-Birds%20Watching.html Studies for Bioremediation: https://jennykendler.com/section/489142-Studies%20for%20Bioremediation%20%28Kudzu%29.html Music for Elephants: https://jennykendler.com/section/442690-Music%20for%20Elephants.html

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)

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Paul Stephan, a comparative and international law expert at UVA Law and author of the new book, “The World Crisis and International Law: The Knowledge Economy and the Battle for the Future,” recently published by Cambridge University Press. Stephan defines the concept of a knowledge economy as the increasing reliance on conceptual work rather than physical labor as a means of adding value to goods and services. He cites the example of container shipping and its impact on the distribution of goods around the world. Stephan argues that innovation is a driving force in the world economy and that international liberalism has emerged as a means of reducing barriers to talent and scalability, which are essential components of the knowledge economy (00:40-9:22). Stephan discusses how global trade systems like the WTO and GATT were formed to promote international liberalism and reduce barriers to trade. He also discusses the “four freedoms” at the heart of the project of international liberalism, which are freedom of movement of goods, services, capital, and people. The expansion of Western liberal internationalism to other parts of the world after the end of the Cold War is also discussed. In the post-Soviet era, liberal internationalism and free trade institutions were expanded to other parts of the world, like Russia and China, in hopes they would follow (9:23-22:58). Stephan discusses how the benefits of the knowledge economy are not spread evenly across the global economy with local distribution of winners and losers as well (22:58-28:32). In the 80s, Russia was a high human capital country but they chose a resource extraction pathway instead of disruptive innovation and production. For Stephan, China has a longer term perspective while Russia has pursued a strategy of using force in international relations and attempting to exploit divisions in competing polities (28:33-40:59). In the context of climate change, Stephan emphasizes the importance of providing incentives for states to develop innovative technological solutions. He praises the transparency of the Paris Agreement and encourages the sharing of technological breakthroughs while still maintaining incentives to innovate (41:00-49:31). Regarding the future of institutions like the WTO and the European Union, Stephan believes that these organizations can survive through adaptation. The conversation ends on a hopeful note, with the possibility of creating a world where incentives work to induce investment in carbon reduction, and where global cooperation is managed through an evolving but still robust international order.

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).

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore is joined by Emma Marris, an award-winning environmental writer and author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-human World. (0:00-1:26) The two begin the discussion by analyzing how nature is defined and valued. Marris critiques the concept of nature; for her, there is no “unspoiled” nature free from human influence, and the idea is associated with colonialist efforts to deny rights to indigenous communities. Marris contrasts the concept of nature with wilderness, which emphasizes the autonomy of non-human animals. The subject of wild animal suffering has seen increasing focus in animal welfare circles. Marris was drawn to the subject when observing certain conservation practices, especially concerning so-called “invasive species.” Many of these practices involve killing wild animals, and she saw that there were difficult moral questions that were often ignored. (1:47-18:40) The conversation moves into the ethics of zoos. Marris believes zoos are unethical as they stand today, even though they have positioned themselves as conservation organizations. While some zoos run breeding programs for endangered species and encourage the public to care more about wild animals, animals endure a lot of suffering in most institutions. When considering the ethics of zoos, one important question is whether and how the notion of animal autonomy is relevant. (18:41-30:39) Zoos and hunting present quite different questions concerning wild animal suffering. For Marris, hunting can be conducted in many different ways, with some being ethical and some not. The two discuss how the attitude of the hunter may or may not matter in the moral calculus. (30:40-43:35) Switching to a more overarching conversation about the ethics of food consumption, Marris notes that simply existing in the modern world requires the consumption of goods that had a production process that at some point harmed another group. She also raises the question of why we should even care about nature, biodiversity, animals, etc. in general. It is difficult to describe exactly what we value. Livermore notes that the field of environmental ethics is relatively new in human moral discourse, so it isn't very surprising that there are many open questions. (43:35-50:14) For the remainder of the podcast, Livermore and Marris discuss the paradox of life and suffering. The fundamental truth of nature is that life cannot occur without suffering and ecosystems would not exist without death. While Marris believes that this issue can never be resolved, she is attracted to the views of philosopher Val Plumwood, who argued that we need to hold reconcilable values at the same time. In order to live, we all want to consume energy but it is impossible to do so while keeping everything alive, vibrant, and diverse. (50:15-57:11)

On this episode of Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Jed Stiglitz, a law professor at Cornell whose new book, The Reasoning State, was recently published by Cambridge University Press. The podcast begins with a conversation on the love-hate relationship between American society and agencies like the EPA. These agencies hold a lot of power and are called on to address many pressing social problems, but they also seem to be a near constant target of political attack. (0:39-5:14) Stiglitz is skeptical that these attacks are genuine and sees them as playing a more symbolic role. Nevertheless, the question of what legitimates agency's authority remains. Stiglitz argues that expertise is not the sole reason that the political branches often delegate important decisions to agencies. For him, administrative process plays an important role. Agencies are bound by procedures, like reason-giving and independent review that legislatures are not, and fundamentally cannot be. (5:14- 15:12) Stiglitz is interested in building a positive theory for how the normative commitments in administrative law could come about through the incentives of political actors. For him the story begins with the progressive era in U.S. history. As the economy became complex, large firms developed, government decisions become more difficult to understand, investigative journalism exposed bad practices, and distrust grew. Agencies, and the procedures of administrative law, were a response to this new environmental that at least partially mitigated the trust gap. (15:13-24:47) The conversation turns to the relationship between rational choice models and the exploratory, evolution-like process that leads to lawmaking. Stiglitz sees rational choice as a useful summary of the forces at play, rather than an actual account of how decisions are made. A more historical account focuses on how human decision makers navigate a complex world full of uncertainty. Since the failed efforts of politicians go unseen, the end result of even a largely random exploration process can look quite rational. (24:48-31:42) One issue for the legitimacy-procedure link is that the average person is not well-informed on administrative procedure. In his book, Stiglitz describes experiments that have revealed that knowledge on procedure affects how people feel about policy outcomes. He argues that the broader public can gain knowledge about procedure via media and other intermediaries. Livermore mentions that people also gain knowledge about administrative process through public comment campaigns, which could help increase legitimacy for agencies. Stiglitz remarks that agencies being subjected to judicial review is covered in the news frequently and therefore is well known. (31:43-41:05) The two discuss the balance between too much and too little procedure: too much procedure hinders the efficacy of agencies by making it too hard to produce any policy; too little procedure results in distrust. Stiglitz also notes that procedure is inherently political and also naturally affects the outcomes of agency decisions. The procedure/substance barrier is permeable and perennially contested. With respect to the current state of administrative law, Stiglitz argues that we have too much procedure in some ways and too little in others. (41:06-49:11) The podcast wraps up by discussing the role of politics in agency decision making. For Stiglitz, agencies are not completely technocratic but they can be fairly unpolitical. This is because agencies effectuate statutory objectives, which, while contested, nonetheless direct agency discretion. The role of politics in agency decision making is regulated and mediated by statutory directives. Even where statutory objectives are themselves the subject of political debate, there is still only a limited range of discretion in agency decision making. (49:12-1:00:39)

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)

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)

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)

Host Mike Livermore concludes Season 1 of Free Range with a solo episode on the value of interdisciplinary engagement. Livermore begins with the theory behind the podcast—speaking with guests with various perspectives and backgrounds relating to the environment and sustainability—and the tradeoffs between being a generalist rather than a specialist. (0:43 – 4:32) In this episode, he wants to explore the questions around interdisciplinary scholarship and engagement: Why do people do it? How is it useful? How is it done in a productive way? (4:37 – 11:20) To begin, it is useful to understand why disciplines exist in the first place. A functional defense of disciplines is that they help us structure our knowledge production. (11:22 – 15:27) There is utility in modeling the world at different scales and reducing complexity of the models. Even though boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, they can help provide needed structure, and porous boundaries allow for productive crossover. Disciplinary boundaries also often seem to track something important about our world and how we understand it. (15:28 – 25:07). In the humanities, the boundaries are not as clearly world-tracking as they are within the sciences but may be more related to how we understand the world. (25:08 – 29:21) The value of disciplines is the creation of collections of people who share knowledge and research questions and methods, which promotes the progressive production of knowledge over time. (29:28 – 39:39) Notwithstanding the value of disciplines, there is a place for interdisciplinary engagement. The value of such research is to combine various perspective. But while certain projects can be of interest to all fields involved, finding research that is rewarding for researches in many diverse fields is a big challenge in interdisciplinary collaboration. (39:40 – 56:23) Livermore wraps up his thoughts on what makes interdisciplinary collaboration work, such as respect for one another's disciplines, taking the time to understand what motivates them, and knowing the difference between normative and empirical questions. He concludes the episode with what motivates him personally, describing interest and appreciation in interdisciplinary engagement as an ‘aesthetic of knowledge.' The overarching goal of Free Range is to create an opportunity to appreciate all of the interesting and difficult work being done across disciplines in the area of sustainability and the environment. (56:25 – 1:02:17)

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)

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)

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore interviews Gerald Torres, a professor at the Yale School of the Environment and Yale Law School and Director of the Yale Center for Environmental Justice. Torres explores the connections between environmental law and social justice from a scholarly and practical perspective. The discussion begins with the Yale Center of Environmental Justice and its efforts to link together environmental justice initiatives across the university and community, including with local Native American tribes . (0:53 – 8:02) This raises the question of how to define work that relates to environmental justice. (8:06 – 14:11) This issue partly implicates whether environmental justice issues are a subset of a broader set of social justice claims or if they are distinctive from other areas. For Torres, one distinction is that the environment requires a broader and deeper perspective. (14:15 – 19:30) Another distinction is the focus of the EJ community on governmental decision making processes. (19:35 – 23:39) The conversation turns to Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice. Torres explains how the Executive Order attempted to create definitions of environmental justice communities and told agencies to incorporate environmental justice concerns in their basic processes. He compares the results of the executive order to the National Environmental Policy Act, which also had an emphasis on improving decision-making. (23:40 – 29:00) Torres emphasizes that the Executive Order responded to a broader social movement that grew out of social activism and communities mobilizing together. (29:01 – 30:57) Livermore and Torres then discuss the relationship between environmental justice and political polarization over environmental issues. They reflect on the former bipartisan history of environmental protection and conservation and how opposition to environmentalism in the Republican party has grown increasingly intense in recent years. (31:00 – 39:00) Torres worries that the partisan nature of this debate will obscure the environmental successes that have been achieved over the last two generations. (39:01 – 43:48) A current tension in environmental law is between local impacts of transitioning to clean energy and the need to decarbonize the economy. Torres explains the common complaint that procedural parts of environmental protection slow down decision-making, which increases the cost or permanently delays projects. But these statutes also protect the voice of disadvantaged groups. They discuss how net metering disputes in California have raised important justice issues as well. (43:50 – 54:00). Torres reflects on the question of how well the current environmental movement has responded to EJ concerns. Torres, who is a trustee for Natural Resources Defense Council and is on the board for Earth Day, says both of these organizations have recognized the importance of integrating environmental justice concerns in the way they think about the environment. (54:02 – 57:45) The conversation closes with Livermore asking Torres what makes him hopeful in light of the environmental challenges we face. Torres states that the broad recognition that we have to act on these issues, the social commitment in many places to environmental education, and his experience working with environmental justice communities have given him hope. (57:47 – 1:00:52)

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore interviews Katherine Blunt, a journalist at the Wall Street Journal and the recent author of California Burning: The Fall of Pacific Gas and Electric and What it Means for America's Power Grid. The conversation begins with the book's narrative of criminal charges, with Blunt briefly describing the cast of characters and situations in the book that led to prosecutions for a violation of the Federal Pipeline Safety Act and 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter. The latter was one of the first situations in history in which a company was charged with homicide. (0:32-7:06) Even with these successful criminal prosecutions, many were left with a sense of dissatisfaction. (7:07-10:30) Livermore and Blunt discuss some of the moral complexities of collective criminal liability. (10:31 - 17:45) Blunt highlights the fact that the victims compensation fund is tied to the future stock price of the company; different types of penalties have the potential to weigh on the company's share price. The two also discuss the difficulty of recruiting new talent to work at a corporation when criminal liability may be at stake. (17:46 - 28:49) The two move to discuss broader policy issues, including how regulated utilities receive returns on capital but not operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Blunt believes that the company had significantly underspent on O&M with serious negative consequences. (28:50 - 33:59) Blunt discusses possibility that the charge given to PG&E — delivering safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy — might be an impossible task. (34:00 - 41:21) The two shift to the topic of renewable energy. Blunt describes California's ambitious targets for carbon reduction. California's early investments in wind and solar helped create the economies of scale which made these forms of energy are affordable, but California's ratepayers paid billions of dollars for this power. (41:22 - 45:25) Livermore asks how people in California should feel about how this has all played out. Blunt responds that California's contribution to reducing carbon emissions is rightfully a point of pride. But as a leader in climate change efforts, California has incurred a real cost. (45:26- 49:29) Blunt then discusses the broader implications of the PG&E story. Utilities everywhere are going to have to confront new risks as a result of climate change. PG&E's story demonstrates that if any company has a narrative of mismanaging risk, it's going to be very challenging to get ahead of things. The consequences of the failure of the electric system are becoming greater, in both an acute and a broader sense. There are lessons here for every region of the country. (49:30 - 52:10) A question that comes out of the book is how bad PG&E's risk management practices were compared to other utilities in California. Blunt highlights the inherent tension between private interests and public good, which is present in every utility company. PG&E is hardly the only utility to mismanage that. Historically, PG&E's mismanagement has been more acute than others and the consequences have been much greater. (52:11 - 55:55) Blunt then turns to bigger picture questions of centralized versus distributed energy. In her view, distributed technology will play a role in how we generate and consume power and it has the potential to reduce the amount of large centralized infrastructure in the future. But, it is hard for her to foresee a future without a need for centralized generation and transmission carried over large distances. The model has a lot of challenges which are becoming more acute, but there is no great solution for a substantially different model. The only solution is to work within the parameters of what we have and make it better. (55:56 - 1:01:00)

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)

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Michelle Wilde Anderson, a law professor at Stanford. Anderson is the author of The Fight To Save The Town: Reimagining Discarded America, published in June 2022. Anderson begins by explaining the subtitle of the book, which draws attention to places that have both high poverty and few governmental resources, challenges that tend to be mutually reinforcing. Anderson discusses the reasons she chose the four places that the book focuses on: they're exceptional places in terms of rich histories and good leadership, they contribute to a larger story when studied together because of their highlighted differences, and they represent the larger range of towns facing the problem of being poor and broke. (1:17 - 5:28) Livermore asks Anderson, why she decided to focus on narratives rather than data and policy solutions. Anderson explains that the dominant stories that we tell about these places typically include violence, corruption, and hopelessness. These narratives are destructive to the political will to keep working on these hard problems. She wanted to acknowledge that the hardships are devastating and real, but there are also extraordinary people working on these problems and we can't wish these places away. (5:29 - 9:40) Anderson highlights a common way of thinking which she considers the “suitcases solution,” which encourages individuals to move towards growth and jobs to solve chronic poverty. Anderson argues that this has been a failed approach. Ideally, people would have options: to move on to opportunity, or to stay where they are without being trapped in intergenerational poverty. A major challenge in many of these places is trust. This is especially destructive because poverty requires communities to come together. This is where the other part of the title of the book comes in, The Fight To Save The Town; it highlights how people can weave society back together and rebuild this basic trust.. (9:41 - 24:59) A problem with the suitcase solution is that people end up unable to move because they lack resources or become traumatized before that becomes a possibility. The experiment of addressing deindustrialization through domestic migration has been tried for the past 40 years and doesn't work. (25:00 - 34:16) Livermore and Anderson highlight the importance of a town building the foundation for people to participate in the labor market. (34:17 - 41:25) Livermore asks Anderson about the redevelopment approach in contrast with investing in current residents. Anderson mentions that local public policy is often focused on downtown redevelopment. Anderson encourages pushing aside those kinds of interventions and investing in the people of the town. (41:26 - 49:58) In regards to these different towns, Livermore asks: Are there broader lessons or general principles that can be implemented in a more systematic way? Anderson responds that she is not confident in a playbook for this resident-centered government or that it even exists.People who work on the frontline of the challenges rarely believe that it is possible to export their model to another town. Anderson emphasizes the importance of mutual aid, social repair, and social cooperation as a universal component of both progress and hope. (49:59 - 56:27) To conclude, Livermore inquires about Anderson's thoughts on the relationship between problems of the contemporary era and labor history in the United States. Anderson responds by noting that there are few periods in our history where we have had an explicit language to discuss poverty and a focus on empowerment, solidarity, and progress. The Labor Movement is one example of this language and leadership in writing. She claims that she is drawn to these individuals who discuss poverty as a source of strength and solidarity and who believe in the power of people. (56:28 - 1:00:47)

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).

On this episode of Free Range, UVA Law Professor Mike Livermore speaks with Jed Purdy, Duke Law Professor and author of the forthcoming Two Cheers for Politics: Why Democracy is Flawed, Frightening – and Our Best Hope. Purdy begins by discussing why current crises and loss of confidence in democratic institutions drew him to his current project. (0:43-4:37) People have begun to ask more of politics than in previous decades to address issues such as climate change and economic inequality, but our confidence in government institutions is still low. This presents a paradox: we want more from politics but we have growing reason to doubt that politics can deliver. (4:38-10:26) Livermore and Purdy discuss how his project fits into the broad trend of theorizing about the meaning of democracy. (10:27-16:51) Purdy endorses civic virtues like open-mindedness but he sees a tendency to avoid the aspect of democracy that is decision-making. He is sympathetic to an earlier view that is more majoritarian, along the lines of the views of mid-20th century political scientist E. E. Schattschneider. (16:52-23:59) The two discuss the problem of power imbalances in any democratic form, and discuss Purdy's objections to the lottocracy alternative. (24:00-33:55) Purdy goes on to discuss the mismatch between the polices generated by current system of governance and the results that most people want. He is skeptical about the possibilities of technocratic government and more optimistic about democratic reforms that would lead policy to more closely line up with people's existing preferences. (33:56-42:47) The conversation covers two very consequential supreme court decisions: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and West Virginia v. EPA. In both decisions, the Court argues that it is delivering policy questions from administrative and judicial institutions into more explicitly political bodies. Purdy suggests that the Court is not making this argument in good faith, given the existing limitation of our political institutions. (42:48-53:51) The conversation ends with a discussion of the balance between leveraging existing institutions to effect change versus fighting for more fundamental reform. Purdy's view is that it is important for serious people to work towards larger structural changes over the long term. He doesn't think that the topic of constitutional reform should be left to the fringe, even if, in the near term, working within existing institutions will continue to be the primary means of improving public policy. (53:52-1:04:44)

On this episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with Matthew Burtner, a Professor of Compositions and Computer Technologies in the music department at the University of Virginia. Burtner's work explores ecology and the aesthetic link between human expression and environmental systems. His latest album is Ice Field. Burtner begins by discussion how his music tries to decenter humans. (0:51-2:29) After listeners hear a snippet from the title track, Livermore inquires about the physical logistics of how he recorded this track. (3:58 – 8:13) Burtner recalls the improvisation he did while on the ice field and describes how environmental music appreciating a new kind of beauty. (8:21 – 11:55) He goes on to explains his commitment to understanding these natural systems as independent forms of aesthetics. (12:00 – 17:30) Burtner describes how he uses sonification to translate environmental data into sounds. He describes how sonification allows us to listen to sounds new kind of sounds, like light reflecting off waves, and to transpose temporality by taking decades worth of data and turning it into a musical phrase we can perceive. On Ice Field, two of his works use sonification, “Ice Prints” which uses ice extent data from the Arctic and is mapped into piano music and “Sonification of an Arctic Lagoon.” (17:32 – 21:20) A snippet of his track “Sonification of an Arctic Lagoon” is played. This piece takes different layers of data and creates musical sounds, this 4-minute piece is 1-year worth of data mapped into musical form. (21:21 – 23:29) Livermore and Burtner discuss the differences between sonification and a more common impressionism approach to relating music to the natural environment. Burtner explains how data is not always what he may want it to sound like and may not be satisfying as music. He explains that you can either try to change the data, which won't represent the system anymore, or listen to it and find the beauty. (23:31 – 29:05) Burtner discusses different approaches to eco-acoustic music: presenting environmental data as sound (sonification), field recording natural sounds (soundscaping), and using natural features as instruments in human-environment interactions. Livermore and Burtner discuss the different technologies used in these techniques and how they are theorized. (29:15 – 36:44) Burtner delves into his favorite examples of soundscape field recording that he has done, playing snippets of both. (36:46 – 41:53) Burtner explains that these recordings transpose our listening outside of our human centered perception. (42:00 – 46:26) Livermore poses a question about aesthetics theory and how the relationship between the deep tradition we inherit affects our way of appreciating these types of music. Burtner explains that knowledge helps open up the world to different dimensions of aesthetics; that it becomes richer the more he learns. (46:30 – 51:26) Burtner discusses how environmental politics has unintentionally played a role with his music and that he appreciates that his music can be a part of that type of discourse. (51:27 – 55:43) With climate change already happening, Livermore asks how much of Burtner's work is coming to terms with these inevitable changes; Is it mourning, celebration, or are they entangled? Burtner describes that art has always given us a place to deal with tragedy, that music gives us a space to mourn. He explains that inside all of these tragedies are modes of sustainability and restoration; they don't always have to be about loss. (55:44 – 1:00:57) Livermore ends the episode inquiring about how listeners should approach and interact with these conceptual pieces at different layers. Burtner describes that the music is designed to be understood on its own and on another level as conceptual art. He hopes that it can be a multifaceted experience of listening. (1:01:03 – 1:05:43)

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Moira O'Neill, a professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at the University of Virginia who also has a joint appointment at UVA Law. Her work covers land use, climate change, equity, and resilience. A specific area of her research is land use law and its relationship to housing affordability, integration, and environmental impacts in California. O'Neill discusses the motivation for her recent study on the regulatory choices that restrict the development of different kinds of housing. (1:39 - 4:17). O'Neill describes the biggest highlight of the study: there's incredible variability in how jurisdictions apply both state environmental review and their own law. (4:18 - 6:16) There is also a vast amount of local discretion. Most approval processes are discretionary rather than through a faster ministerial pathway that is contemplated by state law. (6:19 - 13:24) O'Neill points out that environmental impact reports were quite uncommon in most of the observations because there is a large amount of environmental review happening at the planning level. Theoretically, this in-depth environmental review will explore the potential of environmental impacts associated with the jurisdiction's developmental desires to facilitate their respective policy goals. (13:25 - 17:50) Livermore and O'Neill discuss the exemptions which the state has created for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) for classes of development that the political process has determined are important for facilitating climate policy. (17:51 - 21:45) O'Neill explains the risks associated with longer time frames in the development process. The lengthened process in San Francisco invites important questions about the role of politics. (21:46 - 25:18) O'Neill mentions a San Francisco law that allows neighbors to request a discretionary public hearing for any new development. This provision can be triggered by a neighbor or an interested party, creating uncertainties for developers, especially of affordable housing. (24:19 - 33:10) Livermore asks: What is the nature of the politics that are in play here? O'Neill responds that there are certain processes that seem to open the door for political disputes or opposition to development. (33:11 - 37:34) Livermore and O'Neill discuss whether this involvement of politics is necessarily an intrusion, or an appropriate deliberative process. O'Neill attempts to contextualize the answer in terms of California's law on how land use operates, answering that the challenge is finding the right balance. She also mentions the risk of NIMBYism. (37:35 - 48:49) O'Neill discusses some of the differences between jurisdictions in California, providing an example in which participants in interviews that worked in both San Francisco and Redwood City described both processes as complex, but Redwood city as more predictable and straightforward. (48:50 - 54:21) Livermore asks O'Neill a bigger picture question: How much of this issue is a technical problem with technical fixes? How much of this is reflecting underlying political and economic realities about conflict? O'Neill answers that there is no question in her mind that there are underlying factors that manifest in how the law is applied. However, while there's not a simple legislative or regulatory fix, that doesn't mean that we couldn't do more on the regulatory and technical sides. (54:22 - 1:01:26) Livermore and O'Neill end the episode by covering the concept of good politics. O'Neill highlights that she thinks there can be a disconnect between what people think is happening in a jurisdiction and what is actually happening, which is problematic for policy making. O'Neill concludes that good information is valuable for good politics and good deliberation. (1:01:27 - 1:04:46)

On this episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with Ronald Sandler, a Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University. Sandler writes on environmental ethics, emerging technologies, and ethical issues surrounding climate change, food, and species conservation. His books include Environmental Ethics: Theory and Practice and The Ethics of Species. Livermore and Sandler begin the episode by discussing the relationship between various disciplines engaged in studying the environment. (0:45 - 4:11) They then turn to the question of the moral foundation for intuitions that there is special harm associated with extinction. (4:13- 9:42) Sandler dives further into this philosophical idea of values by discussing the idea that species have value above the individual organisms that comprise them. (9:50 - 15:10) Once we understand where the species came from, the history of their genetic information, and all the future possibilities they have, it is appropriate for humans to value species for what they are. (15:17 - 20:01) Sandler points out that the many ways that species and biodiversity are valuable makes normative justification of policies to protect them over-determined. (20:02 - 25:53) Livermore and Sandler discuss whether conservation law and policy is too species-oriented. (26:00 - 30:25) Sandler believes that there should be a broader view of conservation rather than just species conservation because there can be massive biological depletion without extinction. (27:33 -) Sandler adds that the extinction crisis cannot be handled species by species, that instead we need strategies that protect and capture large amounts of species but also the ecological spaces where they can reconfigure. (30:36 - 32:11) Livermore switches the focus by posing the question of whether humans should manage ecosystems to reduce animal suffering. Sandler finds the view that all suffering is bad strange in the context of the natural world. Sandler says that it is not just about suffering, it is about autonomy and that humans have a narrow conception of what makes for a “good” wild animal life. (32:16 - 37:10) Sandler argues that when thinking of how we ought to respond to something with value, we must also think about both the value and our situatedness in respect to them. Sandler uses an example between a pet dog versus a wild wolf to draw distinctions between the kind of duties owed. (37:14 - 47:16) Sandler discusses the reality that humans have a common evolutionary origin with other species. Breaking down the human/non-human dichotomy undermines the view that we are distinct from the rest of the world and that the non-human world isn't just a resource for us to use. Sandler connects this view as crucial to making the extinction crisis less severe. (47:20 - 52:41) Livermore then asks whether the concept of justice applies in environmental ethics. Sandler discusses how there are narrow and broad conceptions of justice, thinking more broadly of how it is fair that one species (humans) use 40% of planetary resources. He states that the question should instead be how can humans and other species both flourish and live alongside one another? Sandler believes this is possible but requires making changes and reorienting our materialistic conception on what is a “good life.” (52:45 - 57:10) They end the episode by discussing how an increasing population size will increase our human footprint even if we reduce consumption levels. Sandler explains that policies and practices that lower levels of consumption and population growth are possible. Specifically, Sandler points out a major practice that would aid in lowering these levels is shifting away from the idea that maximizing the amount of items we own will lead to a good life. (57:13 - 1:02:11)

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).

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).

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) Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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) Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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)

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Nicholas Agar, a moral philosopher who is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Australia. His most recent book, How to be Human in the Digital Economy, was published by MIT Press in 2019. The conversation begins with something of a retrospective of one of Agar's earlier works, Life's Intrinsic Value, which examines the foundations of moral consideration for non-humans. Agar explains how his approach to these ideas have evolved in the three decades since the book was published. In particular, Agar expands on his belief that philosophy must challenge long-held and widely-accepted beliefs. This leads to a discussion on what Agar describes as one of the central concepts within bio-ethics, the important challenge of determining what life is valued and why. (:40 – 9:56) The conversation then proceeds to examine how these challenges fit within, and are influenced by, a hyperconnected modernity in which individuals are acutely aware of how their actions affect the world, generally. Agar contends that this aspect of contemporary life has inspired a broad range of reactions, most notably a certain nostalgia for a time when society was less connected, and perhaps even an affinity for political movements which absolve individuals of their responsibility. (10:00 – 14:52) Livermore questions if the decline in spiritual cosmologies has also played some role in this state of affairs, and Agar explains how a connection with the natural world may have contributed to a more ethically viable approach to the environment. This leads to an analysis of the work of another moral philosopher, Peter Singer, and the points of intersection and divergence between Singer's and Agar's work. (14:55 – 23:56) Livermore then asks Agar about his views on the rights of nature and of organisms within nature, and how that connects to religion, atheism, the legal regime of nature's rights, and morality. (24:00 – 30:00) The conversation then shifts to the interdisciplinary nature of Agar's work, and how he incorporates the humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences into his philosophical analysis. Agar explains that, in contrast to many philosophers, in some instances he emphasizes breadth over depth, which allows for a wider understanding of a given issue and creates a space for experimentation within the field (30:05 – 39:54). This leads to a long discussion of Agar's recent studies, with a specific focus on the nature of work and how societies can create jobs that are beneficial to individuals' well-being. Agar argues that humans are fundamentally social creatures, and therefore we should aim to create jobs that allow individuals to maintain social connections. Agar also explains why, through the forced interaction that the social digital workplace economy provides, he believes work can be a tool for combating the increasing balkanization of society and isolation of individuals. (40:00 – 1:03:58). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Arden Rowell, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Rowell's work focuses on environmental law, human behavior, and the incorporation of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of environmental law. Her new book, The Psychology of Environmental Law, co-written with Kenworthey Bilz, was recently published by NYU Press. Rowell begins by explaining why, despite the interdisciplinary nature of environmental law, psychology has not, to this point, had the effect on environmental law that it could and should have. She goes on to explain how and why environmental law and policy, in particular, need to be considered from a psychological perspective. This relates to the specific kinds of injuries that are suffered in the environmental law context, with Rowell explaining that environmental injuries are diffuse, complex and difficult to process, and often non-human character. This combination of factors means that it can be difficult for people to attach emotion and value to environmental injuries (1:15 – 8:02). Delving into more detail of these factors, Rowell first addresses the non-human character of environmental injury, with a focus on how this interacts with economic theories of preferences. She also weighs in on whether the public's reflective preferences should drive environmental reform, and more broader sociological factors that can influence environmental policy (8:20 – 23:27). Rowell then speaks about the psychology of how people engage with various environmental issues, such as pollution and the natural/man-made dichotomy. To illustrate her point, Rowell relates a couple of anecdotes from her book, including one about the Mount Tabor reservoir in Portland, Oregon (23:55 – 32:28). The conversation then segues into an in-depth discussion of particulate matter air pollution, wildfire management, and the changing public perception of wildfires generally. Rowell explains that this fits into a broader discussion regarding the shift in public preference from the artificial to the natural, and how risk perception is changing in response to this shift (32:35 – 43:39). Rowell then explains how this information can be used to shape policy in order to better address actual, rather than perceived, risks. She also discusses the role moral disengagement plays in shaping environmental policy and people's view of climate change. (43:52 – 53:32). The conversation concludes with a consideration of the effect of in-group/out-group psychology on our understanding of environmental harm, how this relates to rising nationalism across the globe, and whether a nationalistic environmental policy is sustainable long-term (53:37 – 1:01:00). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Shi-Ling Hsu, the D'Alemberte Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at the Florida State University College of Law. He is also the author of the book Capitalism and the Environment: A Proposal to Save the Environment, which was published in December 2021 by Cambridge University Press. Professor Hsu begins by discussing what motivated him to pursue a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics, having already practiced for several years as a lawyer, and how his experience as a graduate student with a law degree differed from his colleagues (1:00 – 2:58). Hsu then summarizes the basic argument of his new book: that the environmental problems the world currently faces are not the fault of capitalism but, rather, are the result of society's decisions. This leads to a discussion about the relative advantages of capitalism versus centralized planning when it comes to dealing with environmental problems. As part of this analysis, Hsu comments on the shift away from market-based mechanisms that has characterized recent environmental law (3:00 – 11:30). This discussion raises the question of what role increasingly stark economic inequality has played in creating discontentment towards capitalism, to the point of blaming capitalism for things that are not, according to Hsu, capitalism's fault. This leads to an in-depth conversation about the benefits and drawbacks of using capitalism as a means of addressing environmental issues, the intersection of economic inequality and the political undermining of capitalism, and why Hsu believes socialism is not the answer some might think it is (11:35 – 24:45). Professor Livermore then asks Professor Hsu about the libertarian argument against taxation, both in terms of environmental law and more generally. Professor Hsu explains that some libertarian arguments about reducing the size of government may be misguided, drawing on his experience of working on environmental projects with the Canadian government. Hsu also explains why he believes taxes are more beneficial than subsidies, with Professor Livermore pointing out that the unpopularity of taxes when compared with subsidies means that taxes are difficult to use in environmental contexts. Hsu suggests that a compromise might be reached in which nascent renewable energy technologies are subsidized, leading to a political economy in which taxation is more palatable, and then proposes other ways to reduce the apprehension towards taxation (25:00 – 42:05). Professor Livermore questions whether a carbon tax will ever be widely accepted, which leads Professor Hsu to suggest that the United States has simply not yet reached the point of crisis that may be necessary to shift the emphasis from subsidization to taxation, which leads to a discussion of the Green New Deal (42:07 – 48:33) Professor Livermore compares carbon taxation with the various “glide-path” policies that were used to reduce cigarette consumption (48:35 – 50:50). The conversation ends with a return to Professor Hsu's book, and what effect he believes the work will have on the current debate surrounding environmental economics, and who the argument in his book is appealing to (50:53 – 59:19). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Karen Bradshaw, a Professor of Law and the Mary Sigler Research Fellow at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. Bradshaw's work examines the intersection of environmental law and property law. Her most recent book, Wildlife as Property Owners: A New Conception of Animal Rights, contends that property rights can be a useful tool in the protection of endangered wildlife. Bradshaw begins by providing a summation of the central argument of her book, and explaining how the conclusions she comes to are, in fact, a continuation of trends that have been gaining legitimacy in both property rights law and trusts and estates law. She also describes how many of the ideas discussed in the book were well-established in non-Western legal systems and property regimes, such as those of many pre-colonial indigenous communities. This would constitute an expansion of the original understanding of environmental law as it was conceived in the 1970s (:55 – 10:04). The conversation then focuses on what steps the United States government, which owns nearly a third of the country's land area, could take to ensure that wildlife interests are adequately protected against future land takings. Bradshaw describes the process through which the status quo could be changed, so that property can, in fact, be owned by animals and managed on their behalf. Bradshaw argues that the understanding of who (or what) has a right to own property is in constant evolution, and much of the publicly-owned land in the United States is already being managed for the benefit of animals. This part of the discussion incorporates a variety of legal concepts, including conservation easements and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (10:13 – 30:14). This leads to questions about how the legal system would define ownership, and what sorts of natural entities would be entitled to ownership rights. Bradshaw claims that the example offered by approaches to animal rights within the context of the high seas — areas of the ocean outside national boundaries — might be indicative of the path to take within national boundaries. Bradshaw also talks about her own experience with this issue, as she is in the process of titling her own property to incorporate the animals that live on it (30:20 – 37:12). Using her firsthand experience as a reference point, Bradshaw compares the animal-ownership regime with more traditional means of protecting land for wildlife, such as donation to a conservation trust, emphasizing the importance of a move away from anthropocentric understandings of land ownership. This leads to a more in-depth discussion of the legal responsibilities and practical realities of managing animal-owned land (37:40 – 55:40). The conversation concludes with a broad discussion about how we approach animals generally, touching on such ideas as whether blue jays have an easement to the trees in someone's backyard and the extent to which prairie dogs are able to speak, rather than simply communicate, with one another (55:50 – 1:06:53). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

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). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

On this episode of Free Range with Mike Livermore, Mike speaks with Boston University School of Law professor Madison Condon about the interaction between corporate governance and environmental concerns. Condon has written extensively on how corporations are changing their approach to the environment in the face of climate change issues and the rise of ESG investing, which incorporates Environmental, Social, and Governance considerations into larger investment strategies. The conversation starts off with a discussion of the influence of massive investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in the world of corporate governance. These funds are so large that they are now capable of exerting considerable influence over corporate decisions. Condon introduces the concept of Universal Owner theory in the corporate world: institutional investors have such diversified portfolios that it is now in their best interests to care about the environment (1:04 – 7:18). This leads into an analysis of activist investment fund Engine No. 1 which, in 2021, engaged in a successful proxy battle to gain seats on ExxonMobil's board of directors. Condon also touches on broader questions of whether the strategy employed by Engine No. 1 to win the proxy battle opens the door for potential antitrust violations, and the benefits and drawbacks of shareholder primacy. Expanding on these questions, Livermore and Condon discuss a hypothetical situation in which an institutional investment fund acts to benefit itself at the expense of a company's continued existence, and what this behavior might implicate more generally (8:40 – 21:50). Condon then talks about one of the potential outcomes of activist investment — a rise in shareholder derivative suits alleging that boards have breached their fiduciary duties. This part of the conversation hits on various aspects of corporate law, including the scope of the business judgment rule and the significance of Delaware in America's corporate legal regime (23:43 – 31:45). The conversation then shifts to a discussion of the divestment movement as a strategy to influence corporate behavior in the environmental context, the way corporations have engaged in greenwashing in response to the divestment movement's demands, and the rise of ESG in corporate decision-making (31:51 – 48:52). The conversation concludes with Condon clarifying her position regarding just how influential investment funds can actually be in affecting action to slow climate change (50:21 – 55:30). Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.