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.