Cited Podcast

Peter Staudenmayer, a historian specializing in far-right environmentalism, dives into Garrett Hardin's impactful yet tragic legacy. They discuss how Hardin’s view linked overpopulation to environmental degradation, sowing the seeds of neo-Malthusian thought. The conversation explores Hardin's controversial advocacy for abortion and immigration limits, which intertwined ecological fears with eugenics. Critiques emerge, highlighting the rise of cooperative commons management models as a counter to Hardin's views, underscoring the ongoing implications of his ideas in today's eco-political landscape.

A former journalist and environmental campaigner named Pan Yue rose through the ranks of the Chinese Communist Party, championing the concept of “ecological civilization.” This green dream combines elements of traditional Chinese culture with eco-Marxism, suggesting a radical reorientation of humanity’s relationship to the natural world. Is the idea a serious alternative to sustainable development, as the CCP claims? Or is it just a cynical cover for eco-authoritarianism? We ask Beijing-based journalist and environmental Ma Tianjie, author of In Search of Green China (2025).

We’re still on break. One more week before our next episode of our new season, Green Dreams. This week, we wanted to share one of the best environmental podcasts out there: Future Ecologies. This is a podcast audiophiles and for nature lovers. Hosts Adam Huggins and Mendel Skulski explore our natural and our social worlds through stories, science, music, and soundscapes.  We’re playing FOREST / GARDEN, the first episode of their fourth season. In the late 1970s, there was a radical environmental movement that rejected the idea that agriculture and biodiversity needed to be at odds. They called their movement permaculture. Permaculture dissolved the dichotomy between the natural and the artificial, or between the forest and the garden. However, its advocates didn’t always honour the roots they were pulling from. We hope you enjoy! Check in next week for our next episode of Green Dreams.

We’re beginning a mid-season break. If you’re new to Cited, this is a good time to explore our large archive. On this episode, we re-post part one of our award-winning series, the (ir)Rational Alaskans. After the unprecedented Exxon Valdez oil spill, a jury of ordinary Alaskans decided that Exxon had to be punished. However, Exxon fought back against their punishment. They did so, in part, by supporting research that suggested jurors are irrational. This work came from an esteemed group of psychologists, behavioural economists, and legal theorists–including Daniel Kahneman, and Cass Sunstein. That series came out in the summer of 2024. Recently, it was honoured with a Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association. If you’ve already heard it, you could check out some of our other environmental-focused episodes deeper in the Cited archive, including: the Battle of Buxton, America’s Chernobyl, and Modifying Maize. Plus: Live in Toronto? Come out to our live event, October 2nd.

A cowboy hat-wearing Goldwater conservative named Dave Foreman got religion and then founded the most radical environmental group of recent memory, Earth First! They dreamed of a ‘deep ecology’ that recognized the inherent value of nature, and they committed to protecting that nature at almost any cost. Yet, in putting the earth first, did Dave Foreman relegate humanity to a distant second place? This is the third episode of our new season, Green Dreams. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. Plus: Live in Toronto? Come out to our live event, October 2nd.

An Albertan oil man and a socialist policy wonk from Saskatchewan banded together to think up “eco-development,” a precursor to today’s sustainable development. This unlikely duo forged a global consensus at the United Nations, effectively codifying the reigning orthodoxy of liberal environmental governance. They told us that capitalism and sustainability are indeed compatible. Might that be the most utopian of all green dreams? If you want to learn more about this history, we recommend the work of Dr. Steven Bernstein of the University of Toronto, whose was formative in the shaping of this episode. We recommend his excellent book The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. This is the second episode of our new season, Green Dreams. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. There, you will find information about next week’s episode: The Green Monkey Wrench. Plus: Live in Toronto? Come out to our live event, October 2nd.

In the 1970s, Gerard O’Neill drew up detailed plans for large space colonies. The Princeton physicist claimed that these colonies could beam limitless energy back down to Earth, solving all our environmental problems. As climate change accelerates, O’Neill’s once-forgotten green dream has become influential again; many of today’s corporate space evangelists refer to themselves as “Jerry’s Kids.” For solutions to Earth’s problems, should we look to the stars? Plus, in the back half, we talk to Mary-Jane Rubenstein about the religious and colonial language of the early space evangelists, and why that language persists into the present day. This is the first episode of our new season, Green Dreams. In Green Dreams, we tell stories of radical environmental thinkers and their dreams for our green future. Should we make those dreams reality, or are they actually nightmares? For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. Check out that page to see a preview of episode two, The Green Wonks.

Introducing our new season, Green Dreams. Accepting the reality of climate change is just the beginning. What comes next? In Green Dreams, we tell stories of radical environmental thinkers and their dreams for our green future. Should we make those dreams reality, or are they actually nightmares? Starting September 9, 2025, with weekly episodes through October.

The MAGA movement scores big wins by taking cheap shots at experts. Now, some worry that Donald Trump could try to oust Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. The typical centrist position is to defend the supposedly impartial, apolitical expertise of such figures. Yet, we know that is not exactly right. Is there a better way to imagine a better bank? In our first segment, we speak with Frances Coppala, author of The Case for People’s Quantitative Easing. It’s something of a case study in Fed politics, revealing how their decisions post-Global Financial Crisis served the rich, and not working people. Yet, saying that these experts are political does not mean we have to be hyper-partisan reactionary hacks. Instead, democratizing the bank could offer a better way forward. That’s according to Annelise Riles, a professor of law and of anthropology, and author of the book Financial Citizenship: Experts, Publics, and the Politics of Central Banking. Riles is also host the Foreign Policy podcast Everyday Ambassador, which its new second season out now. What would democratizing the Fed look like, and would that really counter the powerful financial interests that have so thoroughly captured the institution? Programming Note: This is the final episode of Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise, a season that tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. We will back with a new season focussed on environmental politics in early 2025, so make sure you are subscribed to our podcast (Apple, Spotify, manual RSS).

For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it’s something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty’s vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty’s Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” This is episode three of the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page.