Michael Vandenbergh's guest appearances

Michael Vandenbergh

The Impact Report

The Ethical Business Podcast

Good Law | Bad Law

Altitude

Free Range with Mike Livermore

Donald Trump

Steve Harvey

Scott Burris

Adam Winkler

Seth Williams

Clarence Thomas

Alex Berenson

Barbara Mancini

Benjamin Rush

Jonathan Adler

Paul Robinson

Jill Abramson

Andrew Friedman

Michael Cohen

ELIZABETH KOLBERT

OwlTail

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 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.

Jennifer Cole and Michael Vandenbergh on Social Psychology and Climate Change

Jonathan Gilligan

How can private industry make the quickest impact on climate change?   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Michael Vandenbergh and Jonathan Gilligan from Vanderbilt University to talk about the future of climate change.   Sometimes, the law cannot solve a problem or, when it comes to climate change, arguably the biggest problem our country faces.  Michael, an environmental lawyer, and Jonathan, a climate scientist, join the show today to talk about a book they recently co-authored called, Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change. In their book, they argue that the private sector, not the government, provides the biggest potential for making a significant difference in climate change in the short term. Michael and Jonathan discuss the background of the climate crisis we face and why, they argue, we cannot afford to wait for the federal government to take action to address the crisis.  Fortunately, some major American businesses are already making significant progress in reducing their carbon footprint to help limit the effects of climate change.   To learn more about their book visit https://www.beyondpoliticsbook.com/.   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Michael Vandenbergh &amp; Jonathan Gilligan   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

How can private industry make the quickest impact on climate change? Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Michael Vandenbergh and Jonathan Gilligan from Vanderbilt University to talk about the future of climate change. Sometimes, the law cannot solve a problem or, when it comes to climate change, arguably the biggest problem our country faces.  Michael, an environmental lawyer, and Jonathan, a climate scientist, join the show today to talk about a book they recently co-authored called, Beyond Politics: The Private Governance Response to Climate Change. In their book, they argue that the private sector, not the government, provides the biggest potential for making a significant difference in climate change in the short term. Michael and Jonathan discuss the background of the climate crisis we face and why, they argue, we cannot afford to wait for the federal government to take action to address the crisis.  Fortunately, some major American businesses are already making significant progress in reducing their carbon footprint to help limit the effects of climate change. To learn more about their book visit <a href="https://www.beyondpoliticsbook.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.beyondpoliticsbook.com/</a>. Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Michael Vandenbergh &amp; Jonathan Gilligan Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: <a href="https://www.law-podcast.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.law-podcast.com</a>

Good Law | Bad Law #112 - Lawmakers May Not Hold the Key to Climate Change w/ Michael Vandenbergh & Jonathan Gilligan