The Statesman, November-December 2013

The Energy Issue

How Pennsylvania should frack + Coal may be our future

Nov/Dec 2013 | statesmanofpenn.com

Penn invests in fossil fuels.

Should we care?

Staff Ben Fogel C’17 Content Alexander George SEAS’17 Technology Chet Heldman C’17 Relations Joe Kiernan C’17 Campus Coordination Matt Nickaj C/W’14 Content Aidan McConnell C’16 Finance Nayeli Riano C’17 Relations Liz Sanchez C’17 Relations Grayson Sessa W’17 Content Donald Sonn C’16 Design and Layout Dillon Weber SEAS’16 Content Justin Wong C’16 Relations Nicholas A. Zarra C/W’16 Campus Coordination

Dear Reader, As always, thank you for your time and your interest in The Statesman. The reception of our inaugural issue was a great success and we would like to thank everyone involved with the creation, funding, and distribution. Most importantly, however, we would like to thank the readers both on campus here at the University of Pennsylvania, and those around the country, whose thoughtful responses have put us on the path to achievement of our goal: broad, fact-based, and intelligent discussion of important political ideas.

The responses to our inaugural issue, both praising and critiquing, have helped to shape this second issue as we at The Statesman find our way to best serve our audience while at the same time accomplishing our stated mission. Our work is ongoing and countless hours of revision and discussion go into each piece, it is with a great sense of pride that we present our work to the public.

While last month addressed a very current issue in the national and local dialogue - education - this month our theme is one which looks at a much broader timeline: energy and the environment. Perhaps on no other issue are things cast in as stark terms as the debate around the future of America’s energy landscape; from “drill baby drill” to “all of the above” to “zero-carbon.”

This issue also touches on something very near and dear to our hearts at The Statesman, intelligent discussion and intelligent conservatism. It is very easy, in the heat of all the rhetoric surrounding global climate change and energy independence, to over-amplify or improperly negate scientific findings. We at The Statesman wish to stress the importance of peer-reviewed science and our commitment to bringing such factual evidence into discussion, while also cautioning against the arrogance of assuredness which has time and again made fools of many of the greatest scientific minds.

Given this, we have followed our principle of allowing all viewpoints and we welcome feedback. We simply please ask you, reader, to be reminded that all opinions are those of the author themselves rather than The Statesman as a whole, and any individual reader will be best served by reaching out to the author of a piece directly for further discussion or debate.

Thank you for your continued readership and we look forward to furthering the discussion with you!

Sincerely,

The Statesman Staff

Content

November-December 2013

4 Demise of Churches

8 Woes of Healthcare.gov

10 Fossil Fuel Investments

12 Coal in our future

14 Fracking in Pennsylvania

18 A Friendly Rivalry The Statesman is a student run publication at the University of Pennsylvania. Our opinions are of our own and do not represent those of the University or of our donors. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written permission is strictly prohibited.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

3

FALLOFTH

HESPIRES A

By Aidan McConnell Pictures by Nayeli Riano

mong the crowded structures near 40th and Walnut Streets, the Methodist Episcopal Church presents a quiet, demure faรงade that seems to meld into its surroundings and complement the rhythm of the West Philadelphia community. Designed by the famed 19th century Philadelphia architect Samuel Sloan, the church has stood for almost 140 years as a nod to the importance of religious life and neighborhood connectivity in a city long known for a unique mixture of secular and religious influences.

Yet very shortly, despite its rich history and former status as an area landmark, the Methodist Episcopal Church is scheduled for demolition.

The fate of a religious structure just down the street from the President of the University of Pennsylvania’s house mirrors that of churches across the Philadelphia region, from Rittenhouse Square to Pennsport to the Graduate Hospital neighborhood. Strikingly, the Church of the Assumption—a building consecrated by Saint John Neumann and the site of Saint Katherine Drexel’s baptism—stands under the shadow of the wrecking ball. In most Philly activist circles, preservation campaigns for such buildings center on historical continuity and architectural appreciation, reflecting an attitude born out of antigentrification sentiments. However, to those who view churches as the principal points of togetherness and spirituality for religious functions, the fall of consecrated walls represents an entirely different concern: the decline of religious communities themselves.

Political theorist Russell Kirk has said that the roots of “culture” come from the “cult”—that is, the characteristics of a broader society form from and are affected by the religious, spiritual, or transcendental attributes of human interaction. In the United States, this assessment rings true: our system of capitalism, for example, owes its emphasis on self-sufficiency and the reward of success to the Puritan creed of a higher calling, while our beliefs about government and public comportment stem as much from religiouslyinfused notions of humility and social responsibility as they do from more pragmatic Enlightenment concerns. Even atheism fits this paradigm. After all, for atheism to serve as the antithesis of organized religion, it must be dependent on the existence of a religious base to align itself against!

6

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

The problem with widespread Philadelphia church demolitions, then, is that a lack of a place of worship breaks down the human ability for spiritual and social organization in group settings. With a scarcity of designated locations to congregate, worshippers are more often exposed to a sense of alienation, untethered from defined locales that reinforce entire lifestyles and worldviews. From this observation, it is evident that each church in the city of Philadelphia represents a node of personal and community construction, building upon shared beliefs and natural

Elimination of churches is as much a symptom of religious decline as it is a source of spiritual and community disintegration. human sociability to sustain a neighborhood in a way a retail store or apartment complex cannot.

With institutions as diverse as the Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral and the Arch Street Meeting House serving as core connectors in their respective locales, it is a wonder what will happen to the Philadelphia area’s distinct cultural and regional identities when religious and spiritual nodes of development are weakened by a disregard for structural sanctuaries.

Troublingly, the elimination of churches is as much a symptom of religious decline as it is a

source of spiritual and community disintegration. It is not entirely surprising that Philadelphia would be affected by a pattern playing out across the United States: the most recent General Social Survey found that almost 20 percent of Americans do not consider themselves part of any religion, and a relatively recent use of the term “spirituality” to describe an identity of beliefs without a corresponding social and religious organization is on the rise. Overall, Philadelphians have followed the national trend, with religious nonaffiliation increasing dramatically from a 1990 estimate of 4.8% of the total city population. With more individuals actively choosing to leave their congregations, the demand for church accommodations has correspondingly declined while remaining churchgoers face the added difficulties of maintaining facilities and operations with a smaller base of logistical and monetary support.

Additionally, the stratification of participants and non-participants in organized religion contributes to the dilemma of estrangement outlined

by Soren Kierkegaard: with believers facing the potential of an atmosphere that abandons belief, even ardent congregational supporters are liable to turn inwards in isolation rather than contribute personal resources and effort to institutional preservation. Consequently, the fall of a church spire perpetuates a vicious cycle in which the collapse of an edifice is just as likely to shake another person’s foundational beliefs as to confirm the end of a oncethriving religious center.

So how does the demolition of a church factor into our lives as residents and contributors to our own neighborhoods and communities? The last days of the

40th Street Methodist Episcopal Church offer valuable insight: lost amid the golden arches of a fast food chain and the looming glass and steel frame of a modern residential complex, the Romanesque building was removed from the sights of West Philadelphia residents, surfacing in public discussion only when it was too late to prevent its loss.

Hopefully, when the church site is finally cleared in the spring of 2014, those who acknowledge the necessity of maintaining the religious, spiritual, and historical elements of communities can use this observation to direct energy and focus toward forging a sustainable future for the rest of Philadelphia’s churches and congregations. Perhaps, as our surroundings continue to change, we can ensure the preservation of homegrown places for religious and personal fulfillment.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

7

“ Health Care Insurance Market, Please Hold”

The troubling reality of HealthCare.gov

By Nayeli Riano

T

hings have not been going well for the government website that launched on October 1st. Yes, the website that would allow for national health coverage regardless of previous medical history had a shaky start. This disappointing and rather frustrating debut was the last thing anyone had in mind as the outcome of $90 million in investment turned into $640 million within three years’ time: considering that nearly seven times the original amount of money allocated for this project was spent to ensure its success, we definitely should have seen more than an

sluggish servers, then the law’s new online exchanges might provide you with an inadequately processed application in the end. It might also greet you with the reassuring: “Important: Your account couldn’t be created at this time. The system is unavailable.” Another favorite was, “The system is down at the moment, we’re working to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Please try again later.”

President Obama’s 2010 health care law was centered on the idea of an exchange where consumers would be able to purchase health

It might also greet you with the reassuring: “Important: Your account couldn’t be created at this time. The system is unavailable.” “error” screen to attest for the site’s completion.

Indeed, the site that was supposed to embody the new healthcare law and all its glory fell short of operational when it failed to even complete a successful signup for thousands of eager “Affordable Care Act” advocates. If you can afford to withstand constant “error” messages, glitches, bugs, and 8

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

insurance. But following its debut, the website that was meant to sign up uninsured citizens for health coverage proved to be a nightmare for users as they were unable to access any of its features. So what was put into the creation of this online market in the first place?

The site was originally intended to help users purchase coverage as well as facilitate sellers in

selling coverage. Yet many users were unable to complete, let alone purchase, the individual-market plan that stumbled out of the factory and resulted in a stalled website.

But the reports of complaints have not stopped there. The healthcare law exchanges was problematic to virtually anyone attempting to use the site at any given time: bugs and glitches thwarted any person’s attempt to log on to the site. These problems were not only exclusive to the 36 states with health exchanges run by the government, the other 14 states and District of Columbia have also reported problems with the website while trying to use it to verify a consumer’s identity.

So what problems did the website face, exactly? “Broken screens” have been reported, displaying incomprehensible phrases such as “???ffe.ee.myaccount…” and other types of database error codes.

These blatantly dysfunctional sites are an embarrassment to the administration that put the website together. Although there has been no direct response from the Obama administration in regards to the causes of this problem, much emphasis has been placed on high volume usage. But even during “low volume” times people have reported the website as unable to load and eventually crashing. There have also been some technical issues with the features of the website, such as the consumer identity verification feature and the pull-down menus.

Some complaints also pertain to confusing wording throughout the site’s directions; confusing options have also sparked discontent amongst the public.

There is also the issue of security, or lack thereof: the public expressed fears about the security

of the personal information they provided to the site due to its poor presentation. It was also reported that the screens originally meant to establish security questions on certain accounts were failing to provide any valid “question” and “answer” options.

What’s more, the site failed to efficiently submit the information necessary to complete any application for coverage. As if this wasn’t enough, problematic software also resulted in inadequately processed applications. Clearly, this problem is not a matter of traffic; rather, it is due to a faulty system that is corrupting the application process and might be tricking people into thinking that they have successfully enrolled in health care when in reality, they have not. This could potentially be an issue in the future, come 2014, and people receive a fine for not having enrolled in the health coverage, as the Affordable Care Act dictates them to do.

But we must realize that this is not a mere mistake on the administration’s part, the exchange’s flop could have easily been prevented: it was estimated by the administration that about fifty to sixty thousand simultaneous users

would make use of the website once it launched. The number of simultaneous users ended up being around 250,000. Of course, this was a clear underestimate of the number of users which would log on to the site simultaneously,

If only the administration had not tried to rush this bill through Congress... and the creators of the site should have taken more precautions to account for the possibility of a user overload.

What are they going to do about it? As announced by the Obama administration, the government website decided to shut down during “low volume” times over the weekend with the intention of correcting several problems and glitches on the site. Allegedly, the enhancements being made to the site would allow for more simultaneous users to be logged on to the website. After a much needed maintenance check, the site was

supposed to improve in navigability and correct any error warnings that might appear on users’ screen.

However the site has continued to be faulty even after undergoing a system-wide renovation last weekend. What’s peculiar is the administration’s refusal to disclose any numbers telling us how many people have successfully signed up for coverage since the site’s launch.

We should keep in mind the fact that officials in the administration had been preparing this site for more than three years.

Eventually the problems with the site will be solved, and consumers will have until midDecember to purchase healthcare from the government website taking effect on January 1st. Such a rash course of action prevented the correct implementation of an effective healthcare system. If only the administration had not tried to rush this bill through Congress as a way to force it upon the American people to embark on this health care trainwreck, perhaps a functional site could have been created. For now, the state help centers will just have to continue apologizing to the masses, in hopes that we will continue to be patient and stay on the line.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

9

The Energy Issue

D

ivestment may be one of the easiest picks for student activists who want to get fiercely involved with some social activism campaign.

Unfortunately, the tactics of radical student groups like the Mountain Justice group at Swarthmore have given the movement a bad name.

First, it is certainly fair for students to be involved with their school’s endowment. The endowment’s reason for existing is to provide for the education of the university’s students. Maybe in the modern era of college rankings the endowment has increasingly become a source of competitive pride for schools, so growing it as quickly as possible is the only goal. Frankly, this makes it all the worse: money coming in from undesirable investments loses its one redeeming factor – that it then goes to fund the education of young adults. Otherwise, colleges are feeding money to oil, gun, and tobacco companies solely in pursuit of pride. The money represents the students’ education; let the students, effectively the shareholders of the university, decide where it is held So, what is the best way to organize the system? Obviously, transparency is not enough.

Universities must be open to taking suggestions from students; otherwise, the transparency is merely a delaying tactic. Not every student suggestion should 10

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

Should Penn fossil fuel

Yes

The endowment should represent the school and its own students.

By Grayson Sessa be taken – after all, students are not trained as endowment fund managers . However, when a tidal wave of concerns floods into an administrator’s office about a controversial investment in a company that causes global warming, the school must consider making a change.

Is not being wholly self-serving a valid criticism? That is what critics are arguing when they say that students who support divestment are doing themselves a disservice by forsaking money that could have gone to improving their education. This argument is especially ironic given the heightened focus on social impact in all four schools of our own University of Pennsylvania.

Wharton sponsors special social impact leadership trips and research programs, the Schwartz Family Penn Social Impact House just took in their first cohort this August, and a key concern for the Nursing School is global impact.

Our school has a history of being conscious to these sorts of concerns, even more so than other colleges: in 2006, President Gutmann announced that no endowment funds would be invested in oil companies with assets in Sudan or anything related to the Sudanese government due to the tragedy in Darfur. This comforting decision to divest offers a precedent that can be followed, should students decide that some corporations are perpetuating other crimes on the Earth.

For some, more money does not outweigh profiting from that which they consider immoral. Universities need to reveal their investments and then gauge the gut feelings of the entire community. If a strong majority feels the need to distance the school from certain companies, then the university needs to listen.

After all, the university is not some foreign body: it ought to be just a representation of the feelings of the community.

divest from companies?

No

Endowment is not a simple game; leave it to the professionals.

By Dillon Weber

C

ampaigns like 350.org and other energy divestment movements have lately been gaining traction on some university campuses. Penn’s DAP, which formed last semester and was featured in the Daily Pennsylvanian in February is among them. While certainly sincere in their motives, such campaigns run by students wishing to “make a difference” are misguided in their approach and their goals.

To begin with, such movements take investment decisions— something the University has a cadre of staff for and devotes no small amount of resources to—from the hands of trained professionals with degrees and past experience into the hands of undergraduates with limited experience in portfolio management and limited knowledge of the consequences of their potential demands. In order to launch ambitious new projects (more specifically in order to pay for them), such as meeting 100%

of every student’s demonstrated financial needs, Penn needs extensive financial resources.

Last year’s Time to Shine event certainly proved Penn is capable of raising funds, but responsibility for growing those funds for the long term and ensuring their continued existence should not lie with a concentrated interest group of students. Many energy companies which would be singled out for divestment are extremely profitable, and looking to become even more so. If Peter Ammon thinks Shell or BP is a good bet, I suggest we defer to his authority.

Publicly calling for divestment also carries repercussions for Penn’s standing with such companies. If the University decides to divest in any specific company or industry, it is sending a very clear and very negative message. This is quite unfortunate considering Penn’s historic ties with the business community.

Many Penn grads looking for jobs

depend on the relationships Penn has fostered with specific companies over many years of interaction. This interaction is mutually beneficial; it supplies industry with toptier talent, provides employment opportunities for current and future Penn graduates, and allows for collaboration between industry and the University. Corporate dinners, information sessions, industry talks, career fairs, all of these things are an important part of what makes Penn a great place to go to school and jeopardizing the relationships which make such events possible in order to make a political point is not fair to students who would otherwise be able to take advantage of such opportunities.

Finally, while divestment is certainly a very public way to send a message about Penn’s position on any given political issue, it is far from the most effective. If students on campus want to lobby Penn for change regarding energy policy, there are certainly better policies to advocate for, both in terms of the likelihood of seeing them implemented and in terms of the immediate effect they would have. Rather than attempting to influence the companies Penn invests in, why not work towards affecting change directly on campus.

Lobby the University for smarter energy use in unused classrooms or closed buildings, or start a campaign for lower energy use in the high-rises. In other words, take an approach which can have an immediate, quantifiable result that does not conflict with the interests of many other students or harm Penn’s standing in the business community.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

11

The Energy Issue

Who Needs Coal?

(We do.)

By Elizabeth Sanchez

“We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy.”

- President Barack Obama.

F

or the President, all-of-theabove seems to exclude one key component of American energy production – the coal industry. Since entering office, President Obama has made clear his intentions to change energy policy and steer down a path that does not rely on energy from coal production. The biggest blow to the coal industry came on September 20 as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the first federal carbon limits on coal companies. The goal of these regulations is to reduce the carbon emissions from new coal powered plants. However, to meet such standards new plants would have to implement new, experimental, and expensive technology. The cost of such technology is enough to prevent companies from building coal 12

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

plants in the future thus, effectively cutting part of the U.S.’s energy supply and reducing jobs. Despite these consequences, the Obama administration continues to push forward in their war on coal. But how are these supposedly beneficial regulations going to help the average American when they will only lead to increasing electricity costs and unemployment? Perhaps that is a question for Press Secretary Jay Carney to answer, but for now one thing is certain – the coal industry is facing a dire future.

Coal is a relatively inexpensive fuel that accounts for over 40% of electricity in the U.S. Today, coal is the largest source of electricity generation but stricter regulations could reduce the amount of electricity production by coal.

The goal of these regulations is to reduce carbon emissions and thus reduce the amount of damage to the environment. New regulations only allow for the generation of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour which is a drastic reduction from the 1,800

pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour that the average coal plant generates today. In order to meet this new standard, new coal plants will have to use Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology which captures carbon dioxide emissions and stores them underground. The high cost to implement CCS is enough to deter companies from establishing new plants, but what is more disturbing is the fact that EPA regulations were based upon a model that has not been fully tested or proven to be effective.

In Kemper County, Mississippi, lies the model coal plant for which the EPA regulations relied upon.

The kicker: the Kemper County plant has not finished construction and has not yet been tested. The Kemper plant was also the recipient of millions of dollars in tax credits and federal grants, a luxury that will not be afforded to new coal plants that would have to implement the CCS technology. It is unrealistic to believe that companies will throw their money into a system that has not been proven to work effectively

or make a profit. In effect, the new EPA regulations will kill any plans for the creation of new power plants.

Previous EPA regulations have led to the closing of over 280 plants, and estimates show that 175 more may

What is more disturbing is the fact that EPA regulations were based upon a model that has not been fully tested or proven to be effective.

close by 2016. With the loss of 175 plants, the country would lose 8.5% of its electricity generation.

Much of President Obama’s energy policy relies upon using renewable energy sources for electricity. The President’s goal is for renewable energy to provide for 16% of the nation’s energy needs by 2035. But the math does not add up

when one takes into account the increasing energy needs due to a coal decrease and the slow increase in renewable energy to only 16% in over 20 years. Coal cannot be matched by renewable energy sources. As coal plants continue to shut down, electricity prices will spike, but according to the President “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”. The President made this comment in 2008 as he was looking for support for his cap and trade system, which ultimately did not acquire congressional approval.

Through the new EPA regulations, the President has effectively bypassed Congress to wage his war on the coal industry. Next year, the EPA will issue new regulations regarding existing coal plants, but recent regulations have provided “a dangerous and far-reaching precedent for the broader economy by failing to base environmental standards on reliable technology,” said CEO of the National Mining Association Hall Quinn. According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, if the new regulations were applied

to current coal plants, energy costs would soar by 20%, more than 500,000 jobs would be slashed, and families would face a decrease in income. For a nation already going through financial difficulties, a blow to the coal industry would only further the damage inflicted upon the American people. New EPA regulations have garnered criticism from both Republicans and Democrats to include Sen. Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia who states that such regulations “will have devastating impacts to the coal industry and our economy.” For states like West Virginia, a blow to the coal industry is a strike to whole communities and economies. For such communities, regulations will have a larger effect, but Americans as a whole will also face tougher times.

It is no secret that the President is moving towards a future without coal.

Given the recent EPA regulations and consequential reduction in coal plants, his goal will most likely be met at the expense of Americans.

Despite all of the President’s efforts to end climate change, the U.S. has no control over the carbon emissions of other countries to include China, India, or Brazil. Even if the U.S. were to reduce all carbon emissions, the nations of the world would soon take up for the carbon emissions no longer produced by the U.S. Why should the U.S. face regulations that stifle its economic growth, increase electricity costs, and force companies to go overseas where conditions are more suitable? Perhaps this question should go to Mr. Carney. Maybe he knows the Obama administration’s magical solution to America’s energy needs. Until then, America’s energy future looks bleak.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

13

The Energy Issue

Fractured Dreams: Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Reality

By Joe Kiernan

T

he Marcellus Shale should serve the interests of the people of Pennsylvania.

Whether it was with coal or oil, Pennsylvania has often led the nation, and the world, in pioneering the energy industry. From the mines of Schuylkill County to the gushing wells of Titusville, this abundance of fuel has satiated the waves of innovating industry that built this country. It was Pennsylvania steel and Pennsylvania labor that fashioned the economic expansion, forging an unstoppable America.

After decades of decline and precipitous depression, the towns and cities of this Commonwealth, nestled in the rolling Appalachians, suffered and rusted as industry fled and prosperity sought new breeding grounds. But a new revolution may reignite this region, long suppressed and starved of growth and jobs, to reestablish Pennsylvania’s status as the keystone of America’s energy infrastructure. The sparks of change rest nearly a mile below the surface… the fuel is shale gas and the change is happening now.

Fracking, shale gas, energy independence: all of these items have punctuated the energy conservation in the United States over the last few years. As America staggers back from a brutal recession and destabilizing political developments endanger Middle East petroleum supplies, new economic realities

14

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

and technological innovations are blasting open a whole new field of energy resources. Much of these new domestic energy efforts are focused upon the Marcellus shale, the potential catalyst of an energy revolution. The Marcellus shale formation is low-density shale from the Devonian period which underlies much of Pennsylvania, southern Upstate New York, eastern Ohio, and West Virginia. According to Gary Lash, a professor at Penn State University, the Marcellus shale formation may contain more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

A process called hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”) is proving to be a fruitful method of extracting gas from these deep

geologic formations. These massive energy deposits have great potential to wean the US off of dirty coal and foreign oil. Natural gas produces 29% less CO2 than petroleum and is touted as the most environmentallyfriendly fossil fuel. Furthermore, the Marcellus shale underlies some of the most impoverished regions in the US: Appalachia. Jobs and investment are deeply desired by these areas.

Gas is also a cheap energy alternative to a nation seeking an alternative to petroleum. Closer to Penn, there is a recent push to develop a shale gas pipeline to a new refinery facility in Philadelphia. Everybody wins?

To many, shale gas seems to be a savior. It enlivens our damaged economy, it brings jobs and growth

to where it is desperately needed, and it satiates the American appetite for energy. In fact, Pennsylvania governor, Tom Corbett (R) cites the benefits of shale gas, an industry he has nurtured with cooperation from Harrisburg. His recent campaign ad states that Marcellus gas has “created 200,000 Pennsylvania jobs, $400 million in local investment, and $1.7 billion in corporate tax revenues for the state.” Is Marcellus gas the panacea to Pennsylvania’s problems?

The real answer is neither simple nor sure. This article is not about forwarding the corporate interests of natural gas producers, nor is it about decrying fracking on ideological grounds. It’s a pragmatic look at the consequences and benefits of fracking and at potential solutions to improve our great state and the lives of its people.

Superficially, fracking seems rather straightforward: a corporation buys a plot of land somewhere in rural Pennsylvania, clears an era of around 5-8 acres of land for wells and infrastructure, and begins driving a well casing deep into the ground to reach the gas deposits. These wells are drilled between 5,000 and 9,000 feet deep and may extend up to two miles in a horizontal direction. Once penetrated, the shale is perforated creating spaces in the shale, fractured with a high-pressure fracking fluid to release the gas, and then deprived of gas as it is extracted by removing plugs within the pipe to bring it up to the surface. The fracking fluid is then, at least according to regulations, treated, cleaned, and then returned to the environment. The gas is sent away to consumers, the owners of the land receive royalty checks, and the Pennsylvania economy hums

along. Seems simple, right? Not so fast.

Fracking fluid is mainly water, but also includes a cocktail of chemicals and proppants, ingredients used to enhance the fracturing process and to hold open hydraulically-fractured rock respectively. These additives are generally approximately 10% of the total volume of the fracking fluid. A single well requires approximately five million gallons of water, equivalent to the daily usage of a

Is Marcellus gas the panacea to Pennsylvania’s problems?

The real answer is neither simple nor sure. city of over 65,000. Furthermore, the disposal of the fracking fluid presents unique challenges.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) has cited over 3,000 violations across the state including improper disposal of fracking fluid, safety infractions, and lack of environmental controls. Recently, The New York Times explored a case in Amwell Township in Washington County where Range Resources, the Commonwealth’s largest fracking company, has been attacked by angry landowners for the poisoning of livestock and water resources. Locals complained of dead horses and of toxic fields where once-fertile land had been.

It is no surprise that the fracking fluid could cause such deleterious environmental consequences.

Some of the chemicals that may be included in the fracking fluid are quite toxic such as 2,2 dibromo-3nitrilopropionamide, formic acid, and tetramethylammonium dioxide.

Furthermore, fracking can trigger releases of radiation. This was recently seen in Blacklick Creek, a major tributary into rivers which serve western Pennsylvania urban water sources. Radium samples taken were 200 times higher than samples taken upstream according to The Guardian. Stunningly, Range Resources, Pennsylvania’s largest fracking company, has admitted in court documents that it actually does not know what chemical components constitute fracking fluid. If Range Resources doesn’t know their own chemicals, then who does?

Many fracking opponents worry about the integrity of major urban water supplies such as to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and these concerns have elicited opposition to expanded drilling. In fact, November 12 is the set date for a vote on the governing fracking in the Delaware River watershed. However, a vast number of rural Pennsylvanians derive their water from either municipal or residential wells and generally lack protection, except at the hands of the overextended DEP. The contamination of these wells is less shocking, in terms of news headlines, but nonetheless catastrophic for farmers and small towns across the state.

Once again, the rural Pennsylvanians are marginalized, not only economically, but politically, by big city interests.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

15

The Energy Issue In order to protect the ecological interests of rural Pennsylvanians, the state government will need to enhance its legislative regulations to penalize corporations for negligence.

Shale gas extraction is a relatively new technology and there exists little legislation that effectively regulates and manages it. On the federal level, fracking regulation is exempt from the Clean Water Act and it theoretically relies upon corporate “self-regulation” for its main quality control measure.

On the state level, the passage of Act 13, a broad and expansive bill otherwise known as PA HB1950, was narrowly passed into law in 2012 in Harrisburg. It permits drilling in all zoning districts, including residential. 6 different townships, effectively stripped of their zoning authority by Act 13, prepared a legal appeal to overturn Act 13 which is currently on appeal. According to the PA DEP, Act 13 also “enacted stronger environmental standards, authorized local governments to adopt an impact fee and built upon the state’s ongoing efforts to move towards energy independence as unconventional gas development continues.”

Furthermore, the bill stipulates that “any person who withdraws or uses water for drilling…must submit and have approved a water management plan which includes a water reuse plan, prior to withdrawing the water.” Act 13 was a major step for natural gas legislation, although it was heavily criticized for shortcomings and for its empowerment of natural gas companies through zoning provisions.

Fracking is cited as a major driver of economic growth across the state.

16

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor reports the creation of 214,000 jobs from the natural gas industry across the state. The average salary for a Marcellus worker is $76,000. The average incomes for many people living in these areas is low, so high-paying, industrial jobs are an incredible opportunity.

Bradford County, the county with the highest rate of fracking activity, has an average income of $21,000 per capita. The potential economic benefit from natural gas could significantly improve the lot of the residents of Bradford and other rural Pennsylvania counties.

However, many of these positions are not held by Pennsylvanians, but by contractors from Texas and Oklahoma due to a lack of skilled

labor in Appalachia. The main impetus behind allowing fracking should be economic in nature and provide jobs to a region starved of opportunities, but there has only been limited progress in enabling real economic development. However, there is significant potential for future economic development in this region.

Almost 3% of natural gas from fracking is lost to the atmosphere.

Natural gas is primarily methane, a gas which is a whopping 25 times more efficacious as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, theoretically from a climate perspective, the release of methane adds another 75% of equivalent CO2 emissions to the emissions from the combustion of the natural gas. We must also not

forget the ancillary contributors: trucks carrying fracking fluids, highpressure pumps, and chemicals such as petroleum naphtha, as well as the transport of the natural gas, all of which produce significant carbon emissions. The carbon reducing benefits of fracking are looking less attractive. The Minnesota Post conducted a comprehensive analysis

It’s easy to calculate figures, but it’s harder to judge how fracking will ultimately affect the lives of Pennsylvanians.

of the actual atmospheric benefits of the increase in natural gas usage in the US. Natural gas now accounts for 1/3 of American electric power generation and “has replaced coal in the generation of about 160 million megawatt-hours as well as displacing about 47 million megawatt hours of electricity of essentially carbon dioxide free power from nuclear and renewable sources.” The Minnesota Post contests that in fact, most CO2 reductions are the cause of increasing efficiency standards and that natural gas is displacing not only dirty coal and petroleum but also carbon-neutral nuclear and renewable sources. But, shale gas’s potential extends beyond domestic use. America is trending towards becoming a net energy exporter, involving natural gas. LNG, or liquefied natural gas, is quickly becoming a major US export due to

increases in European demand.

As of 2012, 30% of the natural gas market is used for electrical generation while 21% is used by households and 27% by industrial users.

Currently, Pennsylvania relies upon carbon-neutral nuclear for 35% of its electrical generation capacity which reduces the state’s greenhouse gas footprint significantly. Let’s hypothesize about the Commonwealth’s energy situation in 2030. The government prognosticates that electricity demand in Pennsylvania will increase by 43% over the next two decades to 25,887 Gigawatt hours. As the nation reduces its dependence on coal and as nuclear power plants are retired, it is highly likely that natural gas will fill the vacuum. Will this transition to natural gas reap environmental benefits? A replacement of the state’s coal generation with natural gas will lead to a decrease in CO2 emissions, but a decreasing nuclear fleet will necessitate the replacement of carbon-neutral fission power with natural gas. By 2030, estimates range that CO2 emissions from natural gas will be approximately 30 billion lbs. of carbon dioxide, or a significant increase from current levels due to increases in demand and the decreases in nuclear capabilities.

This does not even account for the potential loss of methane to the atmosphere.

It’s easy to calculate figures, but it’s harder to judge how fracking will ultimately affect the lives of Pennsylvanians. Royalty checks, job growth, and higher tax revenues are certainly benefits. But when the land’s been fracked dry, and the

water is contaminated, the people of rural Pennsylvania will once again be deprived of the economic engine that was once coal, then steel, then nothing. Marcellus shale offers extraordinary benefits and extraordinary risks for Pennsylvania.

It’s economically irresponsible to deny any exploitation of the state’s resources, especially with the national interest in energy independence and the potential benefit to the lives of Pennsylvanians. But fracking should come with caveats: taxes, regulations, and job training. Governor Corbett has been reluctant to levy higher taxes on natural gas producers, whereas his Democratic rival, Allyson Schwartz has announced her intent to extract revenues from the extraction industry. Act 13 was not nearly effective enough to safeguard the state’s water resources; after all, Pennsylvania has the largest water resources in the continental United States, resources which are renewable. Finally, many Pennsylvanians, unemployed or underemployed, are seeking natural gas jobs. But they lack the education to participate, hence, the huge numbers of out-of-state workers coming to take jobs. If Pennsylvania is going to allow its resources to be exploited, then it should tax, regulate, and educate its way towards prosperity. It would be a tragedy and a travesty if the only ultimate results from this natural gas revolution were toxic rivers, abandoned farms, and depression. Coal and steel’s exodus wrecked the lives of hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians and shattered towns across the state. We should not and cannot repeat our mistakes, for the sake of the state, for the sake of its people.

The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

17

Closing Notes: Collaboration Across A Rivalry

T

on the rhetorical defensive, often being blamed for the he state of conservatism inaction and divided government in our nation is apparently a dire resulting from the irreconcilable one. Republicans have won the popular vote in only one presidential differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate. election since 1992. The Supreme However, further examination Court has recently dealt devastating of the situation of conservatism blows to liberty and federalism in America will reveal that, in cases such as NFIB v. Sibelius while conservatives have and Arizona v. United States. Most importantly, Obamacare, the repeal suffered significant defeats in the public policy arena, the of the Bush tax cuts, and drastic ideological foundations of the expansions of unemployment movement retains widespread benefits and food stamps has public support and popularity. further entrenched the role of the A recent Real Clear Politics poll welfare state and governmentaverage shows 52% still oppose mandated redistribution of wealth.

Obamacare. Rasmussen found Conservatives are also losing that only a third of Americans key battles in the court of public believe stricter gun control laws opinion. Following the disastrous election of 2012, in which President would have prevented the recent Washington Navy Yard Shooting.

Obama easily won reelection Most importantly, Gallup has and Democrats gained seats in announced that a record 65% both chambers of Congress, the of all Americans now believe Republican Party has been placed the government has become too 18

Nov/Dec 2013 - The Statesman

powerful. Liberals’ recent political victories are therefore representative of public disenchantment with America’s conservative leadership rather than with the principles it espouses. Americans do not oppose conservatism; they merely are consternated with the current vessel in which it is being delivered to the public.

As the American people are clearly receptive to conservative arguments, the proper conveyance thereof is of paramount importance in today’s political climate. As polls and the ballot box have shown, Americans are rejecting the messenger rather than the message.

In the proper forum, therefore, the promotion of healthy discourse on conservative values is an easily obtainable goal.

Traditionally, the university has been a societal leader in promoting discussion, dialogue, and examination of political and

philosophical ideals. Universities are home to students and professors who are dedicating a portion of their lives to the pursuit and understanding of knowledge. Such a population is, of course, inherently open-minded and receptive to political ideals.

Over the past several generations, Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania have been among the world’s leading institutions of higher education.

Blessed with incredibly gifted and passionate students and professors and an abundance of educational resources, these two universities are cradles of political and philosophical activity, having produced notable conservative alumni such as James Madison, Jon Huntsman, Ted Cruz, and Samuel Alito.

Sadly, these two Ivy League universities have become bastions of liberalism in recent years.

Left-wing student bodies, in combination with the liberal faculties that have lamentably dominated America’s finest universities, have created adverse political environments for young conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and others who reject the liberal consensus.

However, while some of students at these universities condemn conservatism, most are openminded and intellectual enough to respect, acknowledge, and consider its arguments.

Since 1984, the Princeton Tory has been the premier voice of conservatism on its campus.

Delivering six yearly magazines

to every dorm, dining hall, and academic department on campus, the Princeton Tory has a large audience of Princetonians. The Statesman is a new voice to the campus conservative scene and is a natural reaction to a poor political climate on campus. Just like The Tory, The Statesman strives to fairly represent an intellectual conservative message and to move debate forward via its printed publication and the actions of its members. However, neither publication has a significant reach beyond its respective university’s community. As each publication consists of intellectually like-minded members, the Princeton Tory and The Statesman have decided to cooperate in pursuit of the following goals:

To better spread each publication’s conservative message through the promotion of each other’s content.

To improve the content of each publication through collaboration on jointly written dialogues, articles, and debates.

To intellectually enrich our campus’s respective student bodies through the delivery of a greater quantity of political and philosophical commentary.

To increase the amount of each publication’s readers through the introduction of each other’s articles to new markets.

To better the status of conservatism on each campus through increased intercollegiate communication.

To aid each other’s publications and online content through the sharing of ideas, knowledge, and technological skills.

To ultimately extend the scope of the above goals in cooperation with conservative magazines at other peer institutions.

To bring together these like-minded individuals in order help build and strengthen intellectual and personal relationships.

The Princeton Tory and The Statesman are excited about the opportunities that working together will present.

It is time to put aside faux rivalries in sports and embrace our similarities in order to help achieve our common goal. Our cooperation will lead to mutual benefit, not only for our respective publications, but also for the status of conservatism on Ivy League campuses and throughout the United States as a whole.

Nicholas A. Zarra University of Pennsylvania ’16

Josh Zuckerman Princeton University ’16 The Statesman - Nov/Dec 2013

19

The Statesman Staff would like to thank the following for their support in making this issue possible: Alicia & Kevin McConnell John & Clare McConnell Matt and Michele Weber Sara Weber Matt Wolfe Rob Wonderling

The Statesman of Penn Nov-Dec 2013 - Volume 1, Issue II Visit StatesmanofPenn.com statesmanofpenn@gmail.com