Podcast appearances and mentions of michael livermore

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 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 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, 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, Henry Taylor speaks with Michael Livermore, the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Livermore 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. The podcast begins with Livermore speaking about his specialty areas, how he incorporates his interest in artificial intelligence and machine learning into his legal research, and how those interests fit within the legal field (:50 – 2:41). This leads to a conversation about the potential uses of AI in the context of the legal system, with Livermore providing an extended example of using machine learning algorithms in the criminal justice system. Livermore explains that AI and machine learning may help in determining flight risks, thereby potentially reducing the likelihood of detaining individuals unnecessarily, while also signaling the potential negatives of relying too heavily on these kinds of algorithms. (2:45 – 16:03). Expanding on this while continuing the hypothetical of the flight risk, Taylor introduces the complication of causal factors, with Livermore pointing out that relying on some causal factors, such as those related to bio-determinism, might be highly problematic (16:09 – 20:03). The conversation then focuses on the use of artificial intelligence in the context of making legal decisions, with Livermore explaining why there is a strong argument in favor of AI while also acknowledging that there are practical reasons for leaving legal decision-making power with humans (20:12 – 28:40). Picking up on one of the justifications Livermore provides for preventing full legal automation, Taylor asks Livermore to expand on why, exactly, we believe that individuals have a right to an explanation for a judicial decision (28:45 – 34:06). This leads to a discussion of AlphaGo, Move 37, and whether machines which are capable of learning are also capable of providing reasons for their decisions. Livermore compares this to the demands placed on contemporary artists to explain their work, or chess masters who play moves instinctually (34:12 – 46:42). The conversation then shifts to a focus on indeterminacy in the law and the artificial intelligence of natural language processing. Livermore states that AI has advanced to the point that some linguistic indeterminacy can be accounted for by the algorithm, but that there are invariably going to be errors, and we must establish what we are willing to live with in this regard. As an example of this, Taylor brings up the case of the person who sued his parents for giving birth to him, which Livermore describes as a perfect illustration of where a machine may fail. This, in turn, leads to a discussion of jury nullification, the controversial practice of a jury refusing to convict an individual who would otherwise be found guilty because the jury believes the law in question is unjust (46:50 – 1:00:14). The conversation ends with a discussion of whether artificial intelligence could be programmed to respond with empathy, and the significance of empathy in the legal system more generally (1:00:25 – 1:07:00).

Professors Sarah Krakoff (University of Colorado) and Gerald Torres (Yale School of the Environment) discuss issues at the intersection of environmental governance and the rights and interests of Native American peoples, including threats to lands and other natural and cultural resources, such as Bears Ears, and the exclusion of historic tribal uses from publicly managed lands, such as the Grand Canyon. The talk is the fourth event in the "PLACE and Power" series sponsored by the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment; the Virginia Environmental Law Journal; and the Virginia Environmental Law Forum. UVA Law professors Michael Livermore and Jon Cannon introduced and moderated the event. (University of Virginia School of Law, April 22, 2021)

UVA Law professor Michael Livermore and co-author and New York University law professor Richard Revesz discuss their new book “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health,” along with panelists Jonathan Adler, Amy Sinden and Jonathan Z. Cannon. The authors argue that the Donald Trump administration has destabilized the decades-long bipartisan consensus that federal agencies must base their decisions on evidence, expertise and analysis. The panel was sponsored by PLACE, UVA Law’s Program in Law, Communities and the Environment. (University of Virginia School of Law, Nov. 17, 2020)

In 2008, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz wrote Retaking Rationality, a book arguing that cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be recognized not as an anti-regulatory weapon, but rather a nonideological tool for promoting good government. Now they return with a new book, Reviving Rationality, which analyzes developments since 2008, and proposes further reforms for cost-benefit analysis... Source

In 2008, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz wrote Retaking Rationality, a book arguing that cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be recognized not as an anti-regulatory weapon, but rather a nonideological tool for promoting good government. Now they return with a new book, Reviving Rationality, which analyzes developments since 2008, and proposes further reforms for cost-benefit […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/reviving-rationality-with-michael-livermore-and-richard-revesz/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

In this week's episode, host Kristin Hayes talks with the coauthors of the new book “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health," Michael A. Livermore and Richard Revesz. Livermore was the founding executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University (NYU) and now serves as one of its senior advisors. He is a professor at the University of Virginia’s School of Law. Revesz is the Lawrence King Professor of Law at NYU and the current director of the Institute for Policy Integrity. Oxford University Press released the new book last week; in this episode, Livermore and Revesz talk about why they chose to invest their time in this project, what messages they intend the book to convey, and how they see the issues described in the book playing out over the next few years. References and recommendations: “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health" by Michael A. Livermore and Richard Revesz; https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reviving-rationality-9780197539446 "Mindscape" podcast; https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ "Nice White Parents podcast; https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podcasts/nice-white-parents-serial.html

From courtroom apps to analyzing law texts, UVA Law professor Michael Livermore explains how technology is reshaping legal processes and yielding new insights.

A symposium panel of experts looks at what happens when the federal government deregulates environmental protections and states and organizations step in to fill the gap. UVA Law professor Michael Livermore, George Mason University law professor Caroline Cecot and Florida State University law professor Hannah Wiseman discuss the issues. The symposium was sponsored by the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. (University of Virginia School of Law, October 19, 2017)

UVA Law professor Michael Livermore tells admitted students about the Law School’s environmental law offerings. This talk was part of the 2017 Admitted Students Open House. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 17, 2017)

We dive into the legal nature of the regulatory state with Ethan Leib of Fordham Law School. In what sense is the making of regulatory policy, whether on the environment or on net neutrality, a legal process? Should regulatory agencies adhere to precedent or otherwise be bound by law-like doctrines? We learn about the White House’s influence over rulemaking through OIRA and question how OIRA should function and what legal principles should govern it. This show’s links: Ethan Leib’s faculty profile and articles This Week in Law 263: More Bodies on Blackacre, on which Joe and Christian were guests Nestor Davidson and Ethan Leib, Regleprudence - at OIRA and Beyond Mark Tushnet, Legislative and Executive Stare Decisis The nuclear option About OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and its resource page The major executive orders concerning federal regulation and the role of OIRA The repository of OIRA return letters Cass Sunstein, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities Catherine Sharkey, State Farm 'with Teeth': Heightened Judicial Review in the Absence of Executive Oversight Julius Cohen, Towards Realism in Legisprudence and Legisprudence: Problems and Agenda Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law Carol Rose, New Models for Local Land Use Decisions Cass Sunstein’s memorandum for agency heads, Disclosure and Simplification as Regulatory Tools Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4 Public comments on the Obama administration’s proposal to revise the basic regulatory executive order (including comments from Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, Gillian Metzler, Richard Revesz, Michael Livermore, and Peter Strauss) Ethan Leib and David Ponet, Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children Evan Criddle, Fiduciary Administration: Rethinking Popular Representation in Agency Rulemaking Special Guest: Ethan Leib.