WUPR Issue 23.1: Energy by Washington University Political Review

Washington University

political review 23.1 | September 2015 | wupr.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

ENERGY 8

Not Semantics

Global Energy at a Glance Infographic Aaron Christensen

Aaron Wildavsky

and Serena Lekawa

Clean Coal: Talk Substance,

Taking the Wind Out of

Samuel Klein

Scotland’s Sails

NATIONAL

A Panacea for American Democracy?

Billie Mandelbaum

21 9

Criminal Justice Reform’s

Village Development in

Shaky Coalition

Papua New Guinea

Aryeh Mellman

Alex Kim and David Flasterstein

INTERNATIONAL

22 10

Liberalism in Europe: An

Government Subsidies: Friend or

Identity in Crisis

Foe to Renewable Energy?

Hannah Waldman

Kathryn Rial

23 11

Ben Greenho

Energy on Campus Infographic Aaron Christensen and Serena Lekawa

Don’t Forget About Colombia

Helping or Hurting the Game? Reuben Siegman

Keystone XL: The Myth of Something More Than Just a Pipeline Eli Scher-Zagier

Ode to a Grecian Spurn: A Case For the Grexit Samuel Klein

Diluting the Heavens Aitan Groener

What Cheap Oil Means For Us Max Hofmeister

EDITORS’ NOTE Editors-in-Chief: Billie Mandelbaum Aryeh Mellman Executive Director: Hannah Waldman Staff Editors: Rachel Butler Sam Klein Grace Portelance Features Editors: Aaron Christensen Serena Lekawa Finance Director: Jake Belinky Director of Design: Andrew Kay Assistant Directors of Design: Nikolai Laba Ezekiel Saucedo Director of New Media: Ari Moses Programming Director:

Dear Reader, Welcome back to our returning students, and welcome to our new freshmen, transfer, and exchange students! Before we introduce this issue of the magazine, we’d like to use this opportunity for some shameless self-promotion to invite you to our weekly meetings: Thursdays at 7pm in the Print Media Suite on the third floor of the DUC. At our meetings we discuss salient political and social issues. Our discussions are always civil—we aren’t nearly as ferocious as the members of Congress currently debating the Iran nuclear deal. Which brings us to the theme of this month’s magazine: Energy. Though Ayatollah Khamenei’s nuclear program is just one example, energy not only impacts politics, but also all that we do as individuals. The U.S., with just 4 percent of the world population, uses a quarter of global energy, and our unquenchable thirst for energy drives our policy in the Middle East, increases our use of controversial fracking technology, and leads to billions of dollars in government spending. Our writers demonstrate the way energy policy affects so many facets of life. In his piece on the Keystone XL pipeline, Eli Scher-Zagier looks at more than just politics to examine the economic and environmental impacts of the pipeline. Kathryn Rial calls for more effective government subsidies for alternative energy. In the realm of international politics, David Flasterstein and Alex Kim describe the challenges Papua New Guinea faces as the small island nation attempts to both modernize and maintain its village-based social system. As always, our designers complement the written word with visually engaging graphics and illustrations. WUPR is more than a magazine; it is a website (wupr.org), social club, and discussion group. Our unofficial (though it might as well be official) motto is: “Everything is politics.” We hope that as you peruse our first publication of the year, you consider participating in all that WUPR has to offer. Enjoy!

Reuben Siegman

Billie Mandelbaum and Aryeh Mellman

Front Cover:

Editors-in-Chief

Andrew Kay Theme Page: Nikolai Laba Back Cover: Ezekiel Saucedo

ENE

RGY

political review | THEME

Clean Coal: Talk Substance, Not Semantics Aaron Wildavsky | Illustration by Naomi Giddings

he public debate over clean coal technology has become counterproductive. That’s because it often fails to advance beyond a petty, semantic dispute that distracts from important policy questions. “Clean coal” is an umbrella term used to describe technologies that mitigate coal’s greenhouse gas emissions. Most often, however, it denotes processes called “carbon capture and storage” and “carbon capture, utilization, and storage” (CCS/CCUS). The basic idea is simple: capture the carbon dioxide produced by power plants before it’s released into the atmosphere, and either store it underground forever (CCS) or sell it on a market, where various industries can use it before storing it (CCUS). But one doesn’t hear much about that outside wonkish circles. Instead, discussion centers on the moniker itself. “There is no such thing as clean coal,” leading environmentalist Bill McKibben said in an interview with Link TV. “Coal is dirty when you mine it, it’s dirty when you burn it, and it’s dirty…as far as we can see in the future.” Clean coal, McKibben and others on the left insist, is a myth concocted by the fossil fuel industry to allow itself to mine with abandon, disregarding the threat of climate change. That sentiment has a strong presence on the Wash U campus. In 2009, after the establishment of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization—a university-affiliated research center—SU Senate passed a unanimous resolution denouncing the use of “Clean Coal” in the consortium’s name. Earlier that year, Maxine Lipeles, a senior lecturer in the Law School, said in an interview with Student Life that she considered the term unethical, despite finding nothing wrong with the technology it denotes. “I don’t have a problem with the research,” Lipeles said, “but I do have a problem with taking [the industry’s] spin with it…I don’t think that’s consistent with the ideals of a university and the academic integrity that motivates a university.” More recently, leadership of the student group Fossil Free WashU

has condemned the term—again without demonstrating any substantive opposition to the technology. Such preoccupation with language would be silly even if clean coal had no potential. But as it stands, clean coal does show some promise. That makes fixation on semantics problematic. It obstructs potentially life-enhancing research. Clean coal technology isn’t a magic fix. There is no silver bullet that will stop climate change or end all our energy worries. Still, clean coal has enormous potential to help humanity. Even skeptics should understand at a minimum that it’s far from a sham. At worst, it’s too little too late, and at best, a central component of a clean energy portfolio for the future.

Clean coal technology isn’t a magic fix. There is no silver bullet that will stop climate change or end all our energy worries. Still, clean coal has enormous potential to help humanity. While it’s simple in theory, carbon capture and storage is complicated in practice. It’s expensive to trap and bury CO2 emissions. Sitting in reservoirs underground, there’s no way for captured CO2 to generate a profit for coal companies. Straight CCS probably won’t be economical until the technology progresses quite a bit. That could take a few decades—we still haven’t seen a single commercially viable plant that buries the carbon it captures without using it. So to that extent, the critics are right. But there is potential. Consider the Canadian startup Inventys. The company’s CEO, Andre Boulet, claims that Inventys’ “carbon honeycomb” can capture CO2 for $15 per ton,

or about 1/6th the cost of mainstream carbon capture technologies. Inventys’ work is one example of the innovation that could conceivably bring commercial-scale CCS to fruition. Still, the case can be made that CCS is a pipe dream. Critics say that the technology is too far from where it needs to be and that by the time it can be implemented on a large scale, climate change will be upon us. This might or might not be true as many variables are at play. Regardless, carbon capture, utilization, and storage has more than just potential; it’s happening today. When CO2 is captured, it’s compressed into liquid form. CCUS is effective because liquid CO2 is a marketable product. It may soon be usable in the seawater desalinization process and in “waterless fracking,” a more environmentally friendly alternative to the controversial practice used to harvest natural gas from underground. The most lucrative market for CCUS, however, is in the oil industry. Traditional drilling methods only remove about a third of the oil in any given well. It’s not economical to extract any more without the help of enhanced oil recovery (EOR). EOR is a process in which carbon dioxide is injected into aging, “depleted” oil wells. Deep underground, the CO2 increases the pressure in the wells, separating oil from the cavities in which it’s trapped and any water it mixes with. EOR can remove up to an additional third of the oil in a well, essentially doubling production. The CO2 remains sequestered underground. A negative externality goes into the ground, and a valuable commodity comes out. Of course, this will strike many as counterproductive. Oil is valuable, but it also produces greenhouse gases. EOR would seem to exacerbate the very problem CCS supposedly addresses. But Samuel Thernstrom, the founder and executive director of the Energy Innovation Reform Project, explains that oil produced by EOR won’t actually do much harm at all. “EOR’s direct effect on carbon emissions may be somewhat uncertain,” he wrote in a December 2014 Weekly Standard article, “but at worst

political review | THEME

it’s a wash, and more likely it sequesters more carbon than it produces.” Skeptical? Look at the numbers. A barrel of oil contains 0.43 metric tons of CO2. EOR operations in the Permian Basin (as of December 2014) sequestered 0.4 metric tons of CO2 for each barrel extracted. That’s already close to carbon-neutral, even under the questionable assumption that emissions are additive. In other words, what’s produced by EOR won’t displace any oil currently on the market, but will only add to it. Paulina Jaramillo of Carnegie Mellon University and her coauthors made that assumption in a widely cited 2009 study, which predicted each ton of CO2 injected in EOR would produce 3.7-4.7 tons of net emissions. But the same study acknowledges that, absent the assumption about the oil market, the data would show EOR reducing net emissions by at least 20 percent. Then again, a 20 percent emissions reduction isn’t that great in the grand scheme of things. That’s why EOR is only a temporary solution. It won’t stop climate change, but it will slow it down in the absence of a longer-term fix. It will also help pay down the innovation and infrastructure investment costs of CCS. Still, if EOR is such an exciting CCUS market, why hasn’t it been explored on a large scale? The answer, according to Thernstrom, is that “the costs and benefits don’t quite align—yet.” The cost of carbon capture hovers around $80 per ton, and the market price of liquid CO2 is in the $30-40 range. In fact, because captured CO2 is so expensive, oil companies have resorted to using naturally occurring underground CO2 in EOR. We have a substance that’s dangerously overabundant in the atmosphere, and also happens to be useful to corporations. They know how to capture it, but because that’s expensive they’re taking it out of the ground, where it’s harmless. That’s illustrative of the power of markets. It demands a manipulation of the market. That’s where the government comes in. “Imagine what would happen,” Thernstrom

posits in the Weekly Standard, “if the federal government provided a tax credit that bridged the difference [between the cost of capture and the price of CO2]—a credit, say, of $40 a ton. All of a sudden, we would have a market.” A tax credit for EOR would be a win-win for taxpayers, because “over time, its net effect on the Treasury would be positive to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.” Again, the numbers add up nicely. “Pumping a ton of carbon dioxide into a well produces roughly two-and-a-half to three barrels of oil; on average, each barrel generates $23 or so in federal and state taxes and royalties,” Thernstrom writes. “Each ton of carbon dioxide used for enhanced oil recovery would create about $58 in revenues. Even after covering the cost of a $40 per ton tax credit, the Treasury would come out ahead.”

out there. Until wind and solar can compete with it in terms of both productivity and price, they’ll never take its place—least of all in fastgrowing economies like China and India, which produce an ever-larger percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions. We will eventually need to abandon coal; after all, it is a finite resource. But it could be tens or hundreds of years before that’s necessary. In the meantime, climate change looms. To avoid its effects, we must strive to eliminate CO2 emissions. We must do so while working with coal, because coal is what we have. That may prove difficult, but it will be even harder to drastically limit energy use.

EOR clearly has potential. But, environmentalists may ask, what about renewable energy?

So when it comes to the clean coal debate, by all means, question the research. Question the policy. But don’t ignore the substance entirely on account of terminology. That’s not just petty—it could deprive us of a tremendous opportunity.

I’m all for renewables— a diverse clean energy portfolio will be necessary in the fight against global warming. But, to quote Thernstrom, “anyone who thinks the world is just going to leave coal in the ground is dreaming.” Coal is by far the most abundant, reliable source of energy

Aaron Wildavsky is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He recently interned for Samuel Thernstrom at the Energy Innovation Reform Project. Aaron can be reached at aaron.wildavsky@wustl.edu. 5

YOUR IDEAS HERE

wupr is always accepting submissions from washington university undergraduateS.

SEND YOUR IDEAS TO EDITOR@WUPR.ORG MEETINGS ON THURSDAYS AT 7PM IN THE PRINT MEDIA Suite (3RD FLOOR DUC)

political review | THEME

Taking the Wind Out of Scotland’s Sails Billie Mandelbaum

ver since Donald Trump descended an escalator to the tune of Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” to announce his presidential candidacy, the real estate tycoon’s campaign has been riddled with controversy. From calling Mexican immigrants rapists to insinuating that Megyn Kelly was menstruating during the GOP debate, the brash Trump has clearly been unafraid to speak his mind. As he continues to spout off along the campaign trail, he is also stirring the pot across the pond in Scotland. In 2011, the Scottish government approved a proposal to build the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC), an 11 turbinelarge windfarm off of Scotland’s northern coast near the village of Balmedie. Following the government’s approval, Trump, whose Trump International Golf Links is located two miles from the windfarm’s proposed site, filed a series of lawsuits against the Scots, contending that the “ugly wind turbines” would ruin the views from his golf course. In June 2015, an Edinburgh court rejected Trump’s most recent legal challenge, in which he claimed that the Scottish government illegally approved the windfarm by not holding a public inquiry. Following the ruling, Patrick Harvie, a member of Scottish Parliament, told BBC that, “we cannot allow Trump’s inflated ego to delay our renewables any longer.” Yet it’s not just Trump’s hubris that Scottish wind energy advocates have to worry about. The Conservative Party currently in control of British Parliament (which oversees Scotland’s Parliament) is introducing misguided policies that threaten the future of renewable energy in Scotland and the UK at large. After their victory in the recent UK general parliamentary election, the Conservatives announced that they would cut a subsidy to onshore windfarms in 2016. UK Secretary of Energy and Climate Change Amber Rudd defended the cut as a necessary measure to

deliver on her party’s campaign manifesto promise to both “halt the spread of subsidized onshore wind farms” and “meet our climate change commitments, cutting carbon emissions as cheaply as possible, to save you money.” These two goals, however, are contradictory. Onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy available in the UK. According to an October 2014 EU report, wind energy is significantly cheaper than gas or coal per megawatt hour. In 2014, 5,061 onshore UK turbines supplied the nation with nearly 6 percent of its total electricity needs. Although not a panacea, onshore wind can provide cheap renewable energy. While the introduced cuts will not affect the development of offshore wind farms, such as the EOWDC, offshore wind is nearly twice as costly as onshore wind.

By cutting subsidies to onshore wind farms, the Conservatives are going against the public interest, while also creating an unsound energy policy. What’s driving the Conservatives’ environmental policy? Politics. In the UK, attitudes toward wind energy divide along ideological lines; those on the left favor it, and those on the right oppose it. Like Trump, some Conservatives object to the mere look of wind turbines. Specifically, Conservatives representing rural constituencies, where turbines are often built, have fought against investing in wind energy. One Conservative member of UK Parliament, Chris Heaton-Harris, runs Together Against Wind, an organization that fights against the construction of wind turbines. The organization’s website claims that

“every new wind farm proposal is met by strong local opposition,” but in reality windfarms have garnered popular national support in the UK. A 2014 study found that wind was the most popular source of energy among UK citizens and that nearly half of those surveyed said they would support the construction of an onshore windfarm within 5 miles of their home. Only 19 percent of respondents said that fracking— an energy policy actively supported by the Conservatives—would be locally supported. By cutting subsidies to onshore wind farms, the Conservatives are going against public opinion, while also creating an unsound energy policy. Though the onshore wind subsidy elimination has ramifications for the entire UK, the cut will disproportionately affect Scotland, where over 70 percent of the UK’s wind turbines are located. The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), a left-wing party that holds a majority in Scottish Parliament, has already called for the Conservatives to fall back on the planned subsidy cut. In its 2015 campaign manifesto, the SNP, a party that constantly butts heads with the Conservatives, promised to lead Scotland to 100 percent renewable electricity generation by 2020—a goal that is now threatened. Moreover, a June 2015 report published by the EU reported that the UK “may miss” its legally binding target of generating 20 percent of its energy from renewables. As for “The Donald”? He has pledged to continue the fight against the construction of the EOWDC. And like the Conservatives, Trump’s opposition to the turbines lacks any basis in environmental science. When asked during an appearance before Scottish Parliament to provide evidence in his case against wind turbines, Trump responded, “I am the evidence.”

Billie Mandelbaum is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at bmandelbaum@wustl.edu.

political review | THEME

Village Development in Papua New Guinea Alex Kim and David Flasterstein

small island nation in the South Pacific is attempting to buck all preconceptions of development as its economy grows at staggering rates. Papua New Guinea is a nation of villages. Eighty-five percent of its citizens work in subsistence industries, but Papua New Guinea is also home to a vast array of natural resources, and the expansion of extractive industries is driving economic growth unprecedented in the nation’s brief history. The question of how to maintain the integrity of villages and traditional institutions while reaping the benefits of economic development looms large in the country. Westerners associate progress with urbanization and industrialization, and economic development without these transformations does not seem feasible to many. Papua New Guineans have witnessed the outcomes of development across the globe, and trading their village communities and traditions for urbanization and industrialization in the name of economic development is not desirable to some of them. Yes, many Papua New Guineans want economic growth that will bring better goods and services and a higher standard of living. Yet many do not want to give up their way of life and communities to replicate Western societies. Some in Papua New Guinea have put forth the concept of “village development” to solve this conundrum. In our interview with Rupa Mulina, the Ambassador of Papua New Guinea to the Americas, he expressed hope that Papua New Guinea can maintain a village lifestyle while developing economically. He explained, “We love villages. We are a country of villages. Everyone is moving to cities where infrastructure is easier. Papua New Guinea wants to make villages more attractive.” Helping villages keep pace with industrial and urban centers is important because many citizens share the ambassador’s sentiment that “village life is better.” The citizens of Papua New Guinea may not want their government to radically disrupt their way of life, but they do want the government to play an active role in improving life in their villages.

Incorporating a higher standard of living within the traditional village communities is a best of both worlds outcome. However, diverging from the traditional narrative of development is difficult, with few precedents to emulate. When asked if there are any models of village development Papua New Guinea can utilize the ambassador flatly responded, “No.” Countries usually welcome urbanization, industrialization, and consumerism as fuel for economic growth, rather than avoid those three key tenets. The lack of models is not surprising.

utilize technologies that are the foundation of modern life, and need roads and infrastructure in order to enhance trade and communication. Implementing standardized systems of infrastructure into a country with as much cultural and linguistic diversity as Papua New Guinea is exceedingly difficult. The nation is home to over 850 languages, and lifestyles vary greatly across the country’s diverse topography. Assimilating economic development into villages while maintaining their cultural integrity will require great leadership.

“We love villages. We are a country of villages.” —Ambassador of Papua New Guinea to the Americas

Effective development in Papua New Guinea hinges on strong leadership from within the country but also from the international community. First, Papua New Guinea must receive its fair share of resources and money from the foreign investments that are boosting its economy. As a small, undeveloped nation, Papua New Guinea is often given short shrift in negotiations with large multinational corporations such as Exxon Mobil. The ambassador believes world leaders such as the U.S. and the World Bank need to play a bigger role in keeping individuals and corporations accountable to a higher social obligation. He said, “I feel very disappointed as an individual when a big company comes in and tries to take away all the due taxes.”

The tendency toward urbanization that comes with economic development may be the biggest obstacle to the ambassador’s vision of village development. Almost every narrative of development includes urbanization. The ambassador believes that Papua New Guineans “are very attached to the land. They do not move. They go back to their villages.” This is true now, but economic development could upset the old social order. Increasing agricultural productivity lowers the need for farmers, and growing big businesses creates a demand for workers in industrial centers. These forces lead people to migrate to cities. Urbanization threatens to break the bonds of kinship and community that village life revolves around. Ensuring that the benefits of development reach villages will be crucial in combating large-scale migration to cities. The government faces a daunting task in bringing infrastructure and goods to villages spread across a diverse landscape of mountains, jungles, and small islands. The ambassador told us of Papua New Guinea’s citizens, “few have access to electricity. Most use kerosene [and] firewood. We need to provide energy to the whole country.” Villages need energy in order to

Increased revenue for the government is the first step, but at the end of the day the leaders in Papua New Guinea will determine whether the money does any good. If those leaders are not able to implement effective programs to bring goods and services to villages throughout the nation, then the fruits of development will mainly reach cities. Hopefully, strong willed coalitions will be able to bring benefits to everyone, so the country can succeed economically while maintaining its thousands of years of tradition and culture.

Alex Kim is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at alexkim@wustl.edu. David Flasterstein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at davidflasterstein@wustl.edu. Recently, David and Alex interned at the Embassy of Papua New Guinea to the Americas, Washington DC. 9

political review | THEME

Government Subsidies: Friend or Foe to Renewable Energy? Kathryn Rial

ince the 1970s, there has been an overwhelming body of scientific evidence linking the use of fossil fuels to climate change, which has resulted in a push to find renewable, cleaner sources of energy. Still, despite the urgent need for energy reforms, the U.S. still relies mainly on coal, oil, and natural gas to power residential and commercial areas. Although the convenience and reliability of fossil fuels have set industry standards, they are non-renewable and their damaging effects on the environment and public health are profound. Alternative energy technology has improved significantly over the past three decades, yet in the U.S., renewable energy still supplies less than 15 percent of the total power used by homes. In 2014, American residencies used 6,203 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of fossil fuels. This is approximately seven times more than the 871 trillion Btu’s of renewable fuel used, which includes geothermal, solar, and biomass energy. There are a host of reasons why the U.S. has not embraced renewable energy. For one, technology such as solar panels and wind farms can be an eyesore and can carry high up-front costs, with the average cost of solar panel installation running anywhere from $15,000 to $29,000 before tax breaks. However, despite the possibility of initial expenses, most Americans are unaware that renewable energy is usually less expensive than traditional energy in the long run. Another obstacle is that the major players in the oil and gas industry, such as the Koch Brothers and special interest groups like the ALEC, lobby for policies that stifle the growth of the sustainable energy industry. These parties argue that increased usage of renewable energy will decrease the total number of households that rely on the grid as their main source of power— a shift that would significantly increase remaining families’ monthly bills and incentivize them to make the shift to alternative energy as well.

However, there is another, less obvious reason why sustainable energy remains in the background of the energy industry: government subsidies. Subsidies in the energy industry typically take the form of direct spending and tax relief as well as the provision of services like land, water, and infrastructure at below market rates. Subsidies make sense in theory, but critics claim that they work against the public interest by using taxpayer dollars to offset the costs of production, which does little more than artificially decrease costs and inflate profits. It is undeniable that the current subsidy system is broken; still, the answer is not to abandon government subsidies completely. Subsidies are necessary in many industries to encourage innovation and increase demand, and renewable energy is no exception. However, the current system requires some important changes. First, it is common for subsidies for renewable energy to be given in the form of investment tax credit, which provides tax breaks to investors based on how much money is invested rather than how efficient the project is. This policy removes the incentive to create renewable energy plants that operate at optimum efficiency because it makes no difference to investors’ bottom line. Second, a larger share of subsidies should be allocated to research and development. This large upfront investment would lead to technological innovation that would, in turn, make renewable energy more affordable and lucrative to home and business owners. Another flaw in the subsidy system that stifles the growth of renewable energy is the overwhelming allocation of funds to fossil fuels. Right now, fossil fuels heavily dominate the energy industry, but renewable energy is capable of providing a much greater percentage of America’s power. While it is unrealistic to propose that renewable energy can ever replace 100 percent of fossil fuels, there is a large amount of untapped potential. Over the past 70 years, subsidies for fossil

fuels have been about 12 times larger than those for renewable energy. As a result, fossil fuels’ dominance in the world energy market is reinforced, investors opt to invest in technology for traditional energy, and renewable energy cannot be priced as competitively as fossil fuels. Increased subsidization, at least in the early stages, is crucial to achieving more widespread usage of renewable energy. Subsidizing renewable energy is also more efficient because it does not carry the same environmental cost as fossil fuels, which reduces negative externalities that prevent subsidies from achieving their desired goal.

It is undeniable that the current subsidy system is broken; still the answer hardly seems to be a complete abandonment of government subsidies. Energy in America is an undoubtedly complex topic, made even more complicated by the politics that surround it. Countries that have made renewable energy a priority, such as Denmark and Germany, demonstrate how subsidies can be used to change the way entire nations are powered, but in most cases such an overhaul is simply not realistic. Yet, to sit back and say that meaningful change is not possible is untrue. While we may be far past the point of remedying climate change entirely, the decisions that we make today regarding renewable energy do have the power to shape the world we live in tomorrow.

Kathryn Rial is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at krial@wustl.edu.

Energy on Campus

Research by Aaron Christensen and Serena Lekawa | Infographic by Nikolai Laba

In the past decade, Chancellor Wrighton has redoubled the university’s efforts to increase energy efficency. Here are the results: Cost avoidance by energy efficiency measures per year, with fiscal year 2000 as a base year.

2004 $4.69 M

2001 $3.56 M

2002 $1.18 M University hires first full-time staff dedicated to sustainability

2008

Wash U partners with Kelly Green Biofuel to process waste oil from campus dining into biofuel

2009

Jan. The University ends the sale of bottled water on campus. The school estimates that the ban eliminates 386,000 bottles annually

2010

Single stream recycling instituted, beginning the “Recycle or landfill” system on campus

2011

Jun. Formation of Energy Reduction Committee to design projects to increase the school’s energy efficiency.

2007 $9.22 M

Building LEED Designs LEED is a building rating system developed by the US Green Building Coalition to recognize "green" buildings constructed for energy, water, and resource efficiency. Over a dozen buildings at Wash U have received LEED silver or gold ratings, and recently constructed Lofts have received a platinum rating for its environmentally conscious design.

B UI L DI NG

LEED

P L AT I N UM

Award Winner: The Lofts. The Lofts are projected to be 46% more efficient than standard construction

B UI L DI NG

UNCI L CO

Wash U. nets $3.4 million energy research grant from US Dept of Energy

2009 $8.37 M

Aug. Main campus power plant revamped

US GB C

2014

2008 $11.49 M

UNCI L CO

University initiates the “Eco-To-Go” reusable food containers program

2003 $4.44 M

UNCI L CO

2013

Office of Sustainability opened

2005 $4.98 M

Jun. University founds the International Center for Advanced Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I-CARES) to coordinate research on biofuels and other alternative energy sources

U. S . GR E E

2007

2006 $9.33 M

U. S . GR E E

Danforth Campus switches from coal to natural gas for its steam generators

U. S . GR E E

1992

L E E D GOL D

L E E D S I L VE R

Award Winners include: Danforth University Center, Family Learning Center, and College Hall.

Award Winners include: Busch Hall, Umrath Hall, and Village East.

US GB C

political review | THEME

Keystone XL: The Myth of Something More Than Just a Pipeline Eli Scher-Zagier | Illustration by Andrew Kay

hen Keystone Pipeline owners TransCanada and ConocoPhillips filed an application to expand the pipeline under the name Keystone XL, not even the most prescient Washington policymakers could predict the firestorm that would soon envelop the proposal. Construction on Keystone XL, which would carry Canadian oil sands (also known as tar sands) to refineries on the Gulf Coast, has been delayed for nearly seven years as one owner dropped out, court battles multiplied, and presidential approval stalled. Suddenly, one company’s project was thrust into the national spotlight as environmental groups and landowners balked. As TransCanada’s fight for presidential approval dragged on, it decided to break the southern portion of the pipeline into a separate project called the Gulf Coast Pipeline. Because the Gulf Coast Pipeline would not cross Canada, it did not need presidential approval. However, this meant that TransCanada had to send in a new application for the proposed northern portion (Figure 1), restarting the lengthy process and giving fresh momentum to the pipeline’s opponents. As part of the process, the State Department must determine whether the project serves the “national interest” and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), which it did for both the

initial and revised pipeline routes. Its final EIS for the northern route, released after numerous delays, was 2,000 pages long. If the EIS’s length and the time it took the State Department to complete it are any indication, the Keystone XL pipeline has blossomed into one of the most talked about and politically charged issues in the U.S. The State Department has even devoted a section of its website to the proposal and all of the analysis the department has completed on it: http:// keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/. But does the pipeline really deserve all the controversy, or has it received undue attention? Among the many issues that Keystone XL has brought to the forefront, three aspects stand out: job creation, U.S. dependency on foreign oil, and the environment. In each of these areas, however, Democrats’ and Republicans’ claims fall far short of realistic estimates of the impact.

Jobs, jobs, and...jobs? Republicans, in advocating for Keystone XL’s approval, often point to how much it would help an economy still only tentatively recovering from the recession. The biggest disagreement is over how many jobs Keystone XL would actually create. Supporters love to cite the State Department finding that the pipeline will create 42,000 jobs, while opponents counter

that the department found that the pipeline would only create 35. In reality, both of these figures misrepresent exactly what the State Department found. Since Keystone XL is primarily a construction project, most of the jobs created would be seasonal construction jobs lasting less than a year. In its EIS, the State Department decided to annualize these jobs (e.g., two jobs that would last six months are considered one job on an annual basis). Thus, the 42,000 figure is the number of jobs that Keystone XL would “support” for an average of one year. The word support is vital here: the number includes 26,000 jobs that Keystone XL would only indirectly contribute to; for example, by workers spending their wages. Some 600 of those jobs are in arts, entertainment, and recreation services—areas in which TransCanada surely does not need to hire to build the pipeline. Furthermore, the 16,000 direct jobs include some work, such as manufacturing, that has already been completed. While these jobs are certainly important for the workers who would be employed in them, they are almost entirely temporary jobs that would last less than a year, and most of the indirect ones would not be new. Further, the State Department predicts that only 35 jobs would be permanent—the rest would last

political review | THEME

no more than two years. While the nature of construction is such that most jobs are bound to be temporary, 42,000 jobs lasting a single year would not substantially affect the United States jobs market. By comparison, last year the U.S. economy added 260,000 jobs per month on average. In such a context, claims by both Republicans and Democrats about how many jobs Keystone XL would create are starkly different from the reality and often misrepresent their scale and impact.

FactCheck.org column in USA Today. Keystone XL would not affect the price of oil in the United States to any noticeable extent, but that does not mean that all the oil would be exported.

At What Cost to the Environment?

Energy Independence!...Will Not Come From Keystone XL Another favorite claim by supporters of Keystone XL is that the project would “strengthen our energy security,” as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) put it. Given the constant turmoil and political disruption in the Middle East and many oil-exporting countries, procuring oil from Canada, the story goes, will reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil supply. Not even considering that Canada is itself a foreign country, this ignores the fact that events that disrupt the global supply of oil, such as a war erupting in the Middle East, affect oil prices everywhere. The price of oil in the U.S. will be based on the global price of crude, not which country the oil comes from. Further, the U.S. has already been getting less and less oil from other countries as the production of oil from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has skyrocketed. Saying that the United States can decrease its reliance on foreign oil by building the pipeline distorts how the U.S. purchases oil.

Figure 1 Source: TransCanada Corporation (http://keystone-xl.com/)

Opponents, of course, take this point to the extreme, protesting that all of the Canadian oil is being piped through the United States and then exported to other countries. President Barack Obama says that the oil from the pipeline “is then entering into the world market, and it would be sold all around the world.” Estimates vary widely on exactly how much oil would be exported and how much would be sold in the United States, but certainly a great deal would still be sold domestically—about 50% to 62% would not be exported, based on current trends at the refineries and over a wide range of assumptions, according to a

For many of those opposed to the pipeline, the greatest threat is the detrimental effect it would have on the environment. Or so they say. It is true that oil sand extraction uses more energy and water than most other methods of obtaining power and causes more pollution and emission of greenhouse gases than the development of most crude oil. However, the oil sands will be extracted regardless of whether the pipeline is built—in fact, such extraction is happening at this very moment. That is why, as supporters are quick to point out, the State Department said in its final EIS that the pipeline would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” That does not mean that oil sands extraction will not damage the environment, but stopping the pipeline will do little to end the extraction of those sands. Many people are also worried about the dangerous consequences should a pipeline leak occur. While this is certainly possible despite any steps TransCanada takes to mitigate such a danger, the oil sands that are extracted now are transported by rail—a much riskier proposition, as trains that spill or explode can kill or injure dozens of people. There are still environmental arguments for not approving the pipeline, such as the fear

political review | THEME

that oil sands extraction might increase with the lower transportation costs, but these are minor compared to the doomsday arguments that many opponents have leveled against the pipeline.

Doomed? Or Duped? Republicans and Democrats have raced each other to turn the pipeline into the ultimate rallying point for their respective parties. The amount of time politicians have spent on this issue is staggering: a search of C-SPAN videos referencing Keystone yields over 250 results, while searches for trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—two issues that have led to an outcry by House Democrats against President Obama’s trade policy—return significantly fewer. What is it about Keystone XL that has created such fervor? To Republicans and Democrats alike, the fight over Keystone XL represents exactly the principles for which they stand. Many

Democrats stare in horror as they see a large foreign corporation using eminent domain to take property from landowners in Nebraska and other states in order to build a pipeline that will carry climate-ruining tar sands to the coast to sell to other countries.

“Keystone has become irrationally significant.” –Michael Bloomberg Many Republicans, however, aptly point out that the extraction of the oil sands will occur regardless of whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline is built. To them, the onerous process that TransCanada is forced to go through in order to obtain approval for the pipeline is demonstrative of the needless government interference that deters businesses from making investments in America and leaves citizens out of work.

In a sense, the fight over Keystone XL has always been symbolic. Both sides use it as a means to rail against the problems they see: climate change for opponents and overbearing government for supporters. It is a shame, however, that in the lofty rhetoric used and the politically charged battle created, rational solutions have been obscured and more important problems have been swept to the side. If politicians stopped provoking each other, they might work to find a compromise regarding the pipeline. One idea, proposed by Michael Bloomberg, a former mayor of New York City with a penchant for practicality, is that Obama work with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to develop a bilateral climate deal in exchange for approving the pipeline. This could, Bloomberg argues, more than offset the polluting effects of the pipeline and leave everyone with a victory to claim. Although there are problems, not least of them whether Harper would be willing to negotiate, this is the kind of solution policymakers need to be looking for— and not just regarding Keystone XL. As Bloomberg told the New York Times, “Keystone has become irrationally significant.” It’s about time we changed that.

Eli Scher-Zagier is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at eli.scher-zagier@wustl.edu.

Figure 2 According to a Pew Research Center Poll from late 2014, 59% of Americans support building the Keystone XL pipeline versus 31% opposing it. Among Democrats, support for building the pipeline declines to only 43%.

political review | THEME

Diluting the Heavens Aitan Groener | Illustration by Sara Wong

think of primordial human. In the day, she worked and sweated and at night, before he laid his head to rest, he looked at the stars and considered what lay above. I think of Galileo, who charted the sky and mapped its constellations. I think of the myths and legends, created by countless masses who saw the innumerable lights twinkling infinitely in the night sky and gave them meaning. Only on a few occasions have I tapped into this experience shared by millions of women and men before me. At age 11, while camping in the Colorado Rocky Mountains, a midnight meteor shower affected me profoundly. A few other times, while driving cross-country, camping, or traveling, I have had the opportunity to see glorious night skies that I remember to this day.

I consider it tragic that if I want to live in a city in America, I must sacrifice a regular experience of seeing the stars. I haven’t really gotten to see the stars in a while. In high school, I learned about dark-sky preserves, areas in the U.S. and abroad that are kept free from light pollution, and felt a yearning to experience their intensity. Occasionally, movies, books, and planetariums remind me of the beautiful artistry which is missing from my life, but in general I don’t think about it. The world around me is beautiful and the sky above me looks nice. I guess it doesn’t really matter what else it could be. When I talk to environmentalists they often caution me of what we stand to lose if we do not change our ways. Oh life is good now, they say, but just wait and see when the ice caps melt, the animals die, the shores flood, and the crops wither. Then you’ll be singing a different tune. I see a profound pathos calling me to action concerning the great treasures that we have already lost. Who knows what the future

holds? Maybe it will be nicer for humans to live in a world with fewer polar bears, acidic oceans, and ocean beaches closer to Chicago. We can’t know what will come with certainty. But all of us should mourn the loss of goods, natural wonders of the world, which all who came before us shared, but which we are denied. Light pollution sounds like a trivial problem. It’s not such a big deal that the sky is a little dimmer in big cities, and compared to all the incredible benefits of modern electricity, lighting, power, and energy, fainter stars might be worthwhile. However, this protest falls as a straw man. Caring about light pollution and working to diminish its effect on our lives does not demand a complete cessation of using electric lights at night. The sky can be significantly darkened through the implementation of common sense regulations on public lights to encourage physical guards which direct light downward toward intended spaces, rather than haphazardly scattering it in every direction. The International Dark-Sky Association recommends that lights only be turned on when necessary, be no brighter than necessary, and to minimize blue light emissions, which brighten the sky more than any other color and have been shown to harm humans and wildlife. I care about the night sky. I consider it tragic that if I want to live in a city in America, I must sacrifice a regular experience of seeing the stars. How sad that we miss out on this universal experience and that the magnitude which captivated our ancestors escapes us. I do not wish to spend my nights without any light at all, but I do think that before we dismiss light politics as expensive, idealistic, and unnecessary, we should consider what we lose when we dilute the heavens.

Aitan Groener is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at a.groener@wustl.edu.

political review | THEME

What Cheap Oil Means For Us O Max Hofmeister

il is cheap right now, and has been for longer than usual. The record-low oil prices of the last six months stem from an oversupply, helped by a boom in shale oil and other unconventional sources. In the past few weeks, falling expectations for oil demand, especially from China and Europe, have pushed prices down even further. The current glut of oil put the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on guard as it tries to protect its monopoly power from the growing unconventional producers, notably, the United States and Canada. OPEC’s price war, however, has had many political and economic effects. Oil isn’t supposed to be cheap any more; its unusually low price threatens to upset the balance of power across the world. Oil-dependent countries are seeing their budgets vanish, as are massive energy companies who have been through decades of huge profits. Many oil-exporting countries are in unstable parts of the world, or face criticism of their autocratic policies, and may find it tough to preserve order or suppress dissent without fistfuls of oil money. On the other side, oil-importing countries, manufacturers, and consumers suddenly find their costs slashed. In the U.S., with gas prices hovering around $2.60 a gallon, it’s estimated Americans are saving $630 million a day.

While oil prices are notoriously difficult to predict, they are expected to stay low for the next six months and then stabilize at a higher, but still moderately low, price for the next few years. Suppliers typically determine the price of oil, because of its scarcity, with the largest supplier having the most influence on price. For most of the twentieth century, the U.S. was the world’s largest producer of oil, but domestic production peaked in the early 1970s and then declined. This change left OPEC as the largest producer and controller of oil prices, which they have carefully managed ever since. OPEC operates as a cartel, an organization that colludes to make the price of oil artificially high. The OPEC countries could theoretically increase production (or at least they could have 40 years ago) and easily meet the world’s oil demand, but by restricting production they keep prices high and ensure large profits. 16

Presently, OPEC’s productive capability may be nearing a peak, just as the U.S. did in the 1970s. In fact, growth in conventional oil production across the world appears to be slowing, if not reaching a plateau. Oil experts have always warned that the world’s oil supplies are finite, and both energy companies and environmentalists agree we ought to prepare for the eventual decline in world oil production, predicting a global peak early this century. But in the last five years the United States has nearly doubled its fossil fuel production and again become the world’s largest fossil fuel producer, counting natural gas along with oil.

Prices for the Brent crude oil and West Texas Intermediate benchmarks dropped near $40 a barrel in late August. A small mismatch in oil markets can cause a huge price swing because both oil supply and demand are highly inelastic, i.e. not responsive to changes in markets and prices. When demand is high, oil producers cannot rapidly establish new wells or find more oil, and when demand is low, it is too expensive to stop long-term exploration or drilling projects. Shale oil contrasts with typical oil sources due to its ability to switch on and off wells and adjust production. Shale oil drilling is characterized by many short-lived wells; most

For the first time in many decades, oil is being priced near its production cost, eliminating oil companies’ typical immense profits to the benefit of consumers across the world. Some reports claim that today’s energy boom will be short-lived, but for the present, the world enjoys more oil than ever before, and adherents of Julian Simon seem to have won another argument over resources. The U.S. happens to have some of the largest unconventional oil reserves, although they are expensive and difficult to recover. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there may be up to 2.6 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil shale in the U.S., of which about 1 trillion barrels may be feasible to recover (as compared to Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves of 268 billion barrels of oil). The existence of several other unconventional oil and gas sources such as tar oil sands, liquefied coal or natural gas, and methane hydrates have prompted some economists to speculate we will never run out of cheap energy. However, the Energy Information Administration predicts the current U.S. shale oil boom will peak in 2021 and then steadily decline again, allowing for only a decade of cheaper oil before another oil crisis (other environmentally-conscious sources think this peak will happen faster).

wells decline in production by 80 percent in their first three years. Surprisingly, shale oil production has actually increased marginally over the first half of 2015. Shale oil producers have made drastic adjustments but haven’t cut production yet because they found ways to maintain revenues, making shale oil cheaper. Oil producers cut the number of operating wells in the U.S. in half since mid-2014, but kept up production by exploiting their most productive wells, the “sweet spots” of shale fields, and eliminating any unnecessary or exploratory wells. But shale producers may only be able to hold out so long; shale oil production was not supposed to be viable under $50 a barrel. Producers are nearing the end of futures contracts signed months ago for oil at higher prices, as well as the end of storage capacity to hold oil off the market for better prices. Companies may also suddenly default on their loans as banks recalculate the value of their oil holdings based on lower prices. These complications mean either oil prices will be driven even lower, or oil companies will go out of business and reduce production (reduced

political review | THEME

the OPEC members outside the Middle East. Venezuela, Nigeria, Ecuador, Libya, Algeria, and Iran (although Iran will be less affected if the nuclear deal passes) as well as non-OPEC states heavily dependent on oil exports such as Russia, Brazil, and Indonesia, face a crisis as they see major contributors to their economy and government budget slashed. The U.S., as the world’s largest oil consumer, benefits greatly from low oil prices, as do all countries that import more oil than they export. The political consequences of these oil prices seem so attractive to the U.S. that many have speculated they must be a conspiracy, but while cheap oil helps our foreign policy goals and consumption, the price war’s biggest casualties are U.S. unconventional oil producers.

Image courtesy of WikiMedia Commons production is expected through the rest of 2015 and 2016, until demand recovers). Another reason why supply hasn’t reacted much is the difference between how OPEC responds to oil prices and how the U.S. responds. Oil production in most countries is so lucrative—dangerously so—that countries nationalize production, aligning the industry with national interests, which typically means maximizing profits, but can be manipulated for political goals. OPEC manages the cartel by suppressing competition amongst its members so they collectively benefit, despite the fact that if some members cheated the cartel by increasing production they could individually achieve greater gains than they get from membership. OPEC members have a surprisingly good track record of following their production quotas, so for the last forty years, the cartel has worked. In the U.S. oil production is managed by hundreds of competing producers (not merely the five or six major energy companies as it may seem) and these companies keep prices down through competition: extracting as much

oil as is profitable for their small company, rather than extracting just enough to charge a premium price. For the last few decades, U.S. production hasn’t been large enough for these competing business to bring down prices, but with the major growth of shale oil, the U.S. produces enough to challenge OPEC. OPEC decided in November 2014 not to reduce their production in response to U.S. growth in order to protect their market share. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are leading OPEC now by producing more than ever before in their history. If OPEC dropped production it risks losing customers to American producers and then never getting their business back—oil markets could stabilize with the U.S. as the overwhelmingly top producer at prices more like $70-80 per barrel. Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern countries are gambling that the U.S. producers cannot withstand prices under $50 a barrel and will have to shut down, allowing prices to rise again and OPEC to maintain its oil hegemony. Somewhat inadvertently, this decision may have drastic political consequences, mostly for

For the first time in many decades, oil is being priced near its production cost, eliminating oil companies’ typical immense profits to the benefit of consumers across the world. Low oil prices were expected to increase global GDP by 0.5 percent, however, low commodities prices in general have weakened developing countries that are disproportionately reliant on commodities exports. despite the negative effect on energy companies. Economists also worry that low commodity prices are the sign of weak markets and another coming recession. The Greek debt crisis and China’s slower-thannormal growth have shaken global markets, and with a strong dollar dampening exports and the potential for rising fed interest rates, the robust US economy may struggle to keep up its gains. Unlike the 2008 recession though, which began with the highest oil prices of all time ($145 a barrel), low commodities prices create opportunities for low-cost production, especially since many of the price drops are linked to oversupply rather than declining demand (demand is stagnant or rising slowly). America remains a mildly bright spot in the world economy, and the average person only marginally invested in the stock markets should be able to weather the current crisis just fine.

Max Hofmeister is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at mhofmeister@wustl.edu. 17

political review | THEME

The Global Oil Flow

Research by Aaron Christensen and Serena Lekawa | Infographic by Nikolai Laba

Top 15 producers of crude oil (barrels/day):

Saudi Arabia 11.59 M

U.S.

Russia

China

11.27 M

10.05 M 4.18 M

Canada

Iran

Iraq

Mexico

Kuwait

U.A.E.

Brazil

4.00 M

3.11 M

3.07 M

2.88 M

2.80 M

2.64 M

Venezu- Nigeria ela 2.48 M 2.37 M

Qatar

Angola

2.06 M

1.89 M

Top 15 consumers of petroleum products (barrels/day):

U.S.

European China Japan Union 18.89 M 12.77 M 10.76 M 4.53 M

Russia

India

Brazil

3.32 M

3.16 M

3.01 M

Saudi Arabia 2.95 M

Germany Canada 2.40 M

2.39 M

South Korea 2.32 M

Mexico

Iran

France

Indonesia

2.04 M

1.87 M

1.77 M

1.67M

political review | THEME

Alternative Energy Worldwide Countries that produce much of their electricity without fossil fuels Alternative Energy Worldwide

Qatar

Angola

2.06 M 1.89 M ar Angola

M ar

1.89 M Angola

1.89 M

France

Indonesia

1.77 MIndonesia 1.67M ce

M ce

1.67M Indonesia

1.67M

Countries that produce much of their electricity without fossil fuels Alternative Hydroelectric: Energy Worldwide % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Countries that produce much of their electricity without fossil fuels Hydroelectric: Lesotho 100 .486 % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Paraguay 99.99 59.63 Lesotho 100 .486 Hydroelectric: Bhutan 99.99 6.75 Electricty Terrawatt Hours Paraguay % of Total 99.99 59.63of Electcity Albania 99.98 4.25 Lesotho 100 .486 Bhutan 99.99 6.75 Mozambique 99.87 14.99 Paraguay 99.99 59.63 Albania 99.98 4.25 Bhutan 99.99 6.75 Mozambique 99.87 14.99 99.98 4.25 Nuclear: Albania % of99.87 Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Mozambique 14.99 Nuclear: France 76.49 407.44 % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Slovakia 54.10 14.41 France 76.49 407.44 Nuclear: Belgium 50.55 36.46 Electricty Terrawatt Hours Slovakia % of Total 54.10 14.41 of Electcity Hungary 45.46 14.76 France 76.49 407.44 Belgium 50.55 36.46 Ukraine 45.36 84.89 Slovakia 54.10 14.41 Hungary 45.46 14.76 Belgium 50.55 36.46 Ukraine 45.36 84.89 45.46 14.76 Solar: Hungary % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Ukraine 45.36 84.89 Solar: Italy 6.71 18.82 % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Germany 4.51 26.38 Italy 6.71 18.82 Solar: Spain 4.27 11.97 Electricty Terrawatt Hours Germany % of Total 4.51 26.38of Electcity Greece 2.94 1.69 Italy 6.71 18.82 Spain 4.27 11.97 Belgium 2.82 2.15 Germany 4.51 26.38 Greece 2.94 1.69 Spain 4.27 11.97 Belgium 2.82 2.15 Greece 2.94 1.69 Wind: % of 2.82 Total Electricty Terrawatt2.15 Hours of Electcity Belgium Wind: Denmark 35.51 10.27 % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours of Electcity Portugal 23.63 10.26 Denmark 35.51 10.27 Wind: Spain 17.67 49.47 % of Total Electricty Terrawatt Hours Portugal 23.63 10.26of Electcity Ireland 15.51 4.01 Denmark 35.51 10.27 Spain 17.67 49.47 Lithuania 13.75 .54 Portugal 23.63 10.26 Ireland 15.51 4.01 Spain 17.67 49.47 Lithuania 13.75 .54 Ireland 15.51 4.01 Lithuania 13.75 .54

Sources:US Energy Information Administration, 2012 Data CIA World Factbook, 2013 Data Sources:US Energy Information Administration, 2012 Data CIA World Factbook, 2013 Data Sources:US Energy Information Administration, 2012 Data CIA World Factbook, 2013 Data

political review | national

A Panacea for American Democracy? Samuel Klein

he concept I am about to introduce is not, as my alluring and sensationalist title may suggest, the single answer to repair our population’s system of electing people to represent us. However, it has the potential to make a huge difference in how campaigns are run, how elections unfold, and, ultimately, how many Americans support the winner. Political theorists may label the system in different ways, often as preferential or instantrunoff voting. But the idea is the same: it would supplant our system of voting for presidents, members of Congress, and many local offices. Here’s how it works: Instead of selecting their preferred candidate, voters would rank candidates in their order of preference. They may rank as many or as few as they would like, and could opt to select only one candidate as we currently do today. After all of the ballots are cast, the boards of elections would only look at the top-ranked candidate on each ballot. If that candidate was marked #1 on more than 50% of the ballots, they automatically win. But that often doesn’t happen. Take the 2016 Republican primary. As of publication, not one of the sixteen-plus candidates for the GOP nomination has polled above 20%, let alone 50%, although Donald Trump has come very close. This is where the ranking system comes in. If there is no one with a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is removed from contention, and votes they received are reassigned to the second choice of each voter. (Suppose Jimmy voted for the last place candidate; his vote would then go to whomever he ranked #2.) This process is repeated until someone has over half of the ballots. This could be quite confusing, especially in a race such as the upcoming Republican primary in which the process would likely be iterated multiple times. But consider the infamous 2000 general election, where the race was extremely close in Florida. Gore would have unequivocally won the state, and thus the whole election, had a preferential voting system been in place.

George Bush and Al Gore were just under 50 percent; Ralph Nader captured around 1.5 percent of the vote. Assuming most Nader voters would rather have Gore than Bush in the White House, in the alternative voting scheme Gore would have been ranked 2nd on most of the Nader ballots. When Nader was removed from contention, his ballots would mostly have been reassigned to Gore, who would have won. In the contemporary system, voting for Nader was effectively the same as not voting at all. You may see now why the preferential system is much healthier than the status quo. It encourages citizens to vote for their favorite candidate, which today many voters do not do out of fear of their vote being “wasted.” It is much more appealing to be able to vote for one’s favorite candidate than to try to evaluate the political landscape by guessing who others will vote for to see if such a move would be disenfranchising. Finally, it encourages more people to run, and could eventually make primaries obsolete (so long as there is more than one viable candidate for each party in the general election), because it removes the Nader-esque effect of hedging (or “spoiling”) the vote. In my mind, there are two classes of voters in America. The first group is those who vote for their favorite candidate. Most Nader voters fall in this camp, as do many who vote for the winning candidate. It is neither ignoble nor unreasonable for one to vote purely for his/ her favorite; people vote for different reasons, and often those who support a long shot candidate employ this strategy because they simply cannot support one of the mainstream contenders or they want to raise awareness for a specific cause. These people would be greatly rewarded in a preferential voting scheme, and more citizens would be incentivized to adopt this strategy as well—they could pick their favorite without unintentionally supporting their least favorite candidate as well (as many Nader voters did to Bush by hedging the liberal vote share away from Gore). The second class of voters is the tactical group—those who vote against their least favorite candidate to have the best of the few

realistic outcomes. Americans who may favor self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, but who think only the comparably conservative Hillary Clinton could beat a strong GOP candidate in the general election and vote for her instead of their ideal candidate, are in this group. If the 2016 Democratic primary were a preferential vote, some of these voters might rank Sanders first, then perhaps Martin O’Malley, and then Clinton. They would be ranking their favorites and still not hurting their party’s chances in the general. This system has some shortcomings in practice. For one, our democratic system is extremely change-averse, and the preferential voting process is a bit confusing. Especially in a crowded election like the upcoming Republican primary, many “rounds” of removing leastselected candidates and transferring their votes to the respective next-choice candidate for each ballot could be hard to grasp, and the winner could be hard to predict. As in the current Electoral College, a candidate could win despite not capturing the popular vote, and this would also apply in smaller races where the popular vote currently does determine the winner. But that is the point—more people would be more content with the winning candidate than with the others. This process is used in some local jurisdictions, and in other votes such as at the Academy Awards. As for national-level adoption? It will never happen. But next time you and a group of friends want to grab dinner but can’t decide where, try preferential voting. Everyone will be glad you did.

Samuel Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu.

political review | national

Criminal Justice Reform’s Shaky Coalition Aryeh Mellman

ith the United States at historic levels of political polarization, it’s shocking that a topic as ripe for controversy as criminal justice reform is currently enjoying a rare bipartisan moment. Nonetheless, the push for a smaller prison system, abolition of mandatory minimums, and fewer causes for arrest, has brought together a wide range of political figures that otherwise agree on little else. Rand Paul (R-KY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) are among the bipartisan coalition of senators who are, with the support of President Obama, working to propose such legislation. Signs of bipartisanship are evident beyond the Capitol as well. The newly formed Coalition for Public Safety draws support from the conservative Koch Industries and the liberal Ford Foundation, and partners with political groups that run the ideological gamut including the ACLU, Americans for Tax Reform, Center for American Progress, and FreedomWorks. A “Bipartisan Summit on Criminal Justice Reform,” sponsored by Newt Gingrich and Van Jones, was held in March 2015, and featured 82 politicians, activists, and policy experts from across the political spectrum. Bipartisanship is a rare and welcome sight, and the high degree of comity engendered by criminal justice reform makes its passage seem like a fait accompli. But the potential for fractures in the coalition due to changing facts on the ground are very real, and make passing criminal justice reform an even more urgent task. To understand why criminal justice reform may be in trouble, we must first understand why it came to be such a problem in the first place. In the 1980s and 1990s, criminal justice reform was also a bipartisan issue, with Presidents Reagan and Clinton installing the policies that today’s leaders are looking to roll back. Reagan and Clinton signed bills that created and strengthened mandatory minimum sentencing, extended sentence lengths, and

allocated money to build more prisons. While they are now widely criticized, these policies were not arbitrary; when Reagan took office in 1980, violent crime occurred at a rate of roughly 6 crimes per one thousand inhabitants, and reached its peak in 1991 with a rate of 7.6 crimes/thousand. The policies introduced at this time were meant to solve the crime problem which, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll from 1994, was the top concern of 31 percent of Americans at that time. Since then, the crime rate has been nearly halved, dropping to 3.9/thousand in 2012. Some have attributed this drop to the massive boom in incarceration (which has imprisoned 2.3 million Americans, making up a tenth of all American adults and a quarter of all prisoners in the world). The logic goes that locking up so many criminals leaves a much higher percentage of non-criminals on the streets, which would naturally lead to a decline in the crime rate. However, according to an empirical study from the Brennan Center for Justice, incarceration has had a negligible impact on the crime rate, accounting for about 5 percent of the crime drop in the 1990s, and essentially none of the crime drop in the 2000s. This counterintuitive finding can be attributed to diminishing returns. Increasingly, police have been filling the jails with nonviolent offenders, including many who are prosecuted for drug crimes. There simply aren’t that many more violent offenders out there to arrest, and jailing more nonviolent offenders won’t necessarily contribute to a decrease in crime. The Brennan Center report tested 14 causes commonly cited as reasons for the crime drop (including larger police forces, income growth, decreased crack use, improved policing methods like CompStat), and found that even accounting for all 14 factors, at least half of the crime drop remains unexplained.

This summer, several major U.S. cities have experienced an unusually large spike in murders, which was concerning enough that it prompted a number of law enforcement officials across the country to convene a summit in DC to address the problem. Like the researchers at the Brennan Center, these officials are having difficulty ascribing the crime spike to any particular cause. Since the causes are indeterminate, it remains a distinct possibility that the crime rate will begin an upward journey. If that happens, policymakers may once again ignore the awful economic and human costs that “tough on crime” policies have incurred (mostly against African-American families and communities), and seek to reinstate them. They may trade potentially safer streets for $80 billion in annual prison spending along with the deprivation of employment possibilities and housing opportunities for the 100 million Americans with a criminal history record. Right now, there is a rare opportunity for lawmakers to push forward on reforms that won’t automatically impose disproportionate sentences, vastly reduce the number of nonviolent offenders who are imprisoned and subsequently locked out of much of public life, and grant clemency to prisoners who complete programs which reduce their chances of recidivism. As it stands, criminal justice reform seems as sure a bet as any in politics. But if legislation is delayed, or not codified firmly enough, creeping crime rates could undermine an exceptional chance to correct the errors of the past.

Aryeh Mellman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at aryeh.mellman@wustl.edu. 21

political review | INTERnational

Liberalism in Europe: An Identity in Crisis Hannah Waldman

n his book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, often regarded as the father of 19th century political liberalism, espoused an ideology that can be summed up in the phrase “live and let live.” Across Europe, however, this value of tolerance has come under fire. Parties traditionally recognized as “liberal” have joined forces with those on the far right in order to win elections and gain legislative support. While parliamentary systems often require parties to compromise when in coalition governments, alliances between established liberal parties and extreme nationalist parties call into question the strength of a liberal ideology that has proposed xenophobic immigration policies that curtail civil liberties.

non-Western immigration, then we are getting closer to each other.” The DF represents the second largest voting bloc in Danish politics and has vowed to support the current Venstreled government, making Venstre’s decision to adopt harsh immigration policies a popular move for the newly elected Prime Minister. Paralleling the situation in Denmark, the Liberal Party in the Netherlands gained a majority government in 2010 under Prime Minister Mark Rutte due to the support of the Party for Freedom (PPV). The PPV, known for its anti-Islam, anti-immigration and anti-Europe rhetoric, has played a similar role to the Danish People’s Party in shaping mainstream

As a result, Liberal parties are subject to catering to a populist voice that is easily swayed by fear. The most striking example of this trend was the national election in Denmark in June 2015. After a three-year hiatus, the liberal party, Venstre, was re-elected under the leadership of Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen. Venstre, which translates to mean Left, originally formed as an agrarian party that promoted strong individual legal rights and Danish integration in the European Union. More recently, however, the party’s focus on immigration is highly Euroskeptic and intolerant of religious differences. In a 2014 op-ed, one Venstre spokesperson wrote that the government should create immigration policies that distinguish between people of non-Western backgrounds, justifying it by saying, “Too many non-Western immigrants with Muslim backgrounds do not want our freedom-orientated society model.” The Danish People’s Party (DF), a nationalist right wing party, responded to Venstre’s changed position: “If Venstre has now finally understood the need to differentiate between immigrants and limit

opinion on immigration. However, unlike its Danish equivalent, the Party for Freedom’s voting base is contained in a single region of the Netherlands. Still, by aligning itself with the Liberals, its overtly racist position was magnified on the national stage. Although the coalition government deteriorated in 2012, the Liberal Party’s adoption of a hardline position on immigration demonstrates the party’s susceptibility towards populism and quick disregard for socially liberal values. This new strain of liberalism is a symptom of bigger problems—both in Europe and within the party. In Europe, the growing popularity of an extreme nationalist platform reflects the increasing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant feelings of the general public. Although this xenophobic position existed on the political fringe in the 1990s, mainstream liberal leaders have brought it into the political foreground, which has made it more socially acceptable and therefore more threatening.

Within the party, the tendency for some liberals to lean to the right on the immigration issue while others advocate for the exact opposite position reveals an important division among those who subscribe to a liberal ideology. While some liberal parties remain true to values of tolerance and equality, they have not performed nearly as well in recent elections. The British Liberal Democrats, the Danish D66 and Radikale Venstre, continue to fight the far-right insurgence, yet have failed to make a name for themselves in national elections. Unfortunately, these groups are associated with the more right wing parties through the Alliance of Liberal Democrats in Europe, the international liberal party. As long as they remain connected in this way, Europe will lose its socially liberal voice to stronger, populist parties that only masquerade as liberal. Liberalism in practice is unique from conservatism or socialism in that it focuses on creating a fairer society, rather than catering to a particular identity group or social class. Studies show that the sole reason people join liberal parties is because of ideology, rather than secondary social benefits common amongst Conservative and Socialist party members. However, the opaque nature of what liberalism is, and who liberals are, makes it difficult for the general public to understand. As a result, Liberal parties are subject to catering to a populist voice that is easily swayed by fear. The popularity of Liberal parties, such as those in Denmark and the Netherlands, threatens the future of minority groups in Europe. Their success in rolling back progressive policies that they might have once championed permanently damages the character of their party. The state of Liberalism in Europe today would make John Stuart Mill roll over in his grave. Hannah Waldman is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hannahwaldman@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

Don’t Forget About Colombia Ben Greenho

uch of the world’s attention this summer has been focused on the negotiations between the P5+1 countries and Iran regarding the latter state’s nuclear capabilities. At the same time, however, an equally important series of negotiations has been taking place in Colombia that has the potential to transform that country. The battle between the Colombian government and the left-wing guerilla Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym, FARC) has raged at various levels of intensity for over half a century. Now, however, the negotiation of a solution to the conflict has entered its final stage – but whether such a solution can be effectively worked out depends on a host of complex factors. For those unfamiliar with the conflict, a brief explanation of its background and the negotiations underway to end the hostilities is in order. In the 1960s, the Colombian government, aided by CIA operatives, launched a crackdown on rural communist guerilla groups that were fighting for greater peasant control over land. In 1964, several of these groups reorganized themselves into the FARC. Conflict between the guerillas and the government increased dramatically during the 1980s as the illegal drug trade in Colombia skyrocketed. Since 1964, over 200,000 people have been killed as a result of the fighting between Colombian government forces and the insurgents. In 2010, former defense minister Juan Manuel Santos was elected president of Colombia. In August 2012, Santos announced the beginning of talks between the FARC and the government to negotiate an end to the conflict. However, these negotiations have now dragged on for three years and have been interspersed with several major incidents of violence between the two sides. For example, in April of this year FARC rebels murdered 11 government soldiers in a midnight attack. In response, the Colombian government killed 26 FARC members in a raid, which in turn caused the FARC to attack critical infrastructure such as oil pipelines. This latest spate of violence has

increased the Colombian population’s distrust of the peace process. In April of this year, a Gallup poll revealed that only 52 percent of Colombians are “optimistic” that the current negotiations will produce a lasting deal, down from 69 percent just two months earlier. Along with these outbreaks of violence, the underlying motivations of both sides at the negotiating table are also potential stumbling blocks on the path to reconciliation. For example, the FARC, which is labeled by the Colombian government as a terrorist organization, sees itself as a legitimate political movement that represents the

Only 52 percent of Colombians are “optimistic” that the current negotiations will produce a lasting deal. oppressed workers of rural Colombia. The Santos administration has diffused some of this tension by guaranteeing the FARC some form of political representation in a postconflict government. However, a major sticking point regarding the future of the FARC is how the leaders of the organization should be punished. According to Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue, FARC commanders argue that they should not be charged for rebelling against the state because they are the “victims of a repressive government,” whereas 80 percent of Colombians believe that the leaders of the FARC deserve incarceration. This disagreement must be overcome for negotiations to be successful. On the government’s side, President Santos currently has an approval rating of only 29

percent, stemming from the discontent of many Colombians over the most recent violent exchanges between the government and the FARC. Some critics have argued that Santos, by declaring a December deadline for the final agreement, is trying to force through a mediocre deal in order to secure his political legacy. Others have argued that his weakened popular support has left him no other option but to agree to whatever deal is negotiated, and that he will resort to renewed campaigns against the FARC if they fail to uphold their end of the bargain. Both possibilities could hinder the negotiation of an effective peace plan. Despite the disparate goals of the two factions, several important agreements have already been made in the negotiation process. These include new initiatives such as economic stimulus for rural areas devastated by years of fighting as well as an end to the government’s policy of spraying pesticides on fields of coca, which is used to produce cocaine (the FARC’s main revenue source). Further pragmatic decisions on the part of both parties, such as the FARC signing a legally binding ceasefire in exchange for judicial leniency for lower ranking members, could add the final grease to the wheels of the peace process and produce an effective agreement to bring the decades of violence to an end. Instead of sticking to stubborn demands and rushed negotiating tactics, the two sides should use the next four months to continue to compromise and to come to a final consensus that successfully ensures the future security of their country.

Ben Greenho is a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at bggreenho@wustl.edu 23

political review | INTERnational

Helping or Hurting the Game? Reuben Siegman

his summer, soccer fans watched with outrage as the truth was finally revealed: there is a rampant culture of corruption within FIFA. After hosting privileges for World Cups 2018 and 2022 were awarded to Russia and Qatar respectively, many suspected that there was high-level corruption within FIFA. After much criticism, FIFA decided to open an investigation, led by US attorney Michael Garcia, into the awarding of those World Cup locations. However, FIFA refused to release Garcia’s full report, prompting him to resign in protest. Media attention surrounding corruption within FIFA increased this summer during the FIFA presidential elections. People were skeptical that continued leadership of the organization under Sepp Blatter would be able to produce any meaningful reform or oversight. However, Blatter’s reelection to the presidency seemed inevitable because of FIFA’s “one country one vote” policy. This has led current leadership to ignore the demands of the largest soccer playing countries like Germany, the United States, and France, and to instead cozy up to tiny countries like the Cayman Islands and Montserrat in order to get votes. A system of pork barrel politics has thus been created, with officials from smaller countries demanding project funding in return for their vote. With the World Cup producing profits of $2.6 billion last summer, there is plenty of room to both fund projects and give countries’ officials some extra money to ensure their vote. Instead of condoning such corruption, the US and Swiss governments decided to intervene. The US government brought a legal case that has led to a 47-count indictment, charging 14 officials with racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering conspiracy. Many of these officials were extradited from Switzerland where they were meeting for the annual FIFA Congress. Why did the US government intervene, and why was this all over worldwide news for several days? Soccer is popular among fans, and in turn, generates lots of money. The value of the game, however, cannot be accurately

measured with economic statistics. The value of soccer lies in the power it has to unite people around the world. Many of soccer’s greatest stars have committed to using the game to help people and break down barriers. There are countless stories of players like Didier Drogba of the Ivory Coast donating his earnings to build a hospital in his hometown and Cristiano Ronaldo offering to pay for a sick child’s expensive surgery. FIFA has instituted a “say no to racism” campaign since 2006, and has expanded the penalties for exhibiting racist behavior to include forcing

The value of soccer lies in the power it has to unite people around the world. teams to play in empty stadiums if fans start racist chants. Additionally, because soccer is a global sport, fans are exposed to the foreign cultures of players from other countries. For example, kids growing up in England can look up to an African player, who just happens to play for their favorite team. In these and many other ways, soccer helps to defeat racism. Furthermore, the game of soccer itself is something of an international language, connecting people who otherwise would have nothing in common. I experienced this multiple times this summer. When I was in Israel, my friends and I saw a group of young French teenagers kicking around a ball. Soon my friends and I joined them, beginning an impromptu game with only the common language of love for

the game connecting us. There are similar stories that happen across the globe on a daily basis. To put it simply, in a world of great divide, soccer is one of the rare things that can truly unite people of different beliefs, ethnicities, and values. The only thing needed to play soccer is a ball, which helps to explain why the game is prevalent in all parts of the world and in all parts of society. In African communities there is a strong passion for soccer, but a lack of basic services such as electricity. Companies like Uncharted Play have sought to solve this problem by creating products such as “The Soccket,” a soccer ball that when rolled charges with energy that can be harnessed for later use by the community. This has enabled societies that otherwise would not have access to electricity to obtain it by simply doing something they already do—playing soccer. The world was so outraged this summer at FIFA because people felt that the game that they love, a game that brings so much good into the world, was being run by people who had lost their way. Soccer’s leadership apparently did not share the belief in the power of the game to “do good” in the world. Soccer aficionados around the world felt betrayed, and rightly so. The organized sport of soccer is at a crossroads, with fans and players everywhere anxiously waiting to see what the future holds. Will FIFA attempt to right the ship and provide more transparency, or will corrupt, under the table bargaining remain the price of doing business?

Reuben is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at reuben.siegman@wustl.edu.

political review | INTERnational

Ode to a Grecian Spurn: A Case For the Grexit Samuel Klein

xi! The citizens of Greece spoke in late June, voting by a 22.6 percent margin to reject their creditors’ austere demands in exchange for a bailout. Germany, a primary Greek creditor and fellow Eurozone member was entitled—if not obliged—to feel slighted by the results of the referendum. Germany’s economy drives the Euro, and Greece is hurting its value by nearly defaulting. The official Greek retirement age has substantially trailed that of Germany in recent years, and a government retiree in Greece will likely receive a much more favorable pension plan (covered by taxes) than a German federal worker. However, using tax funds for these generous pensions has proven problematic for Greece. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Greeks dodge their taxes substantially more than Germans, EU citizens, and companies on average. The tax-collection infrastructure in Greece is so poor that failing to pay taxes is relatively commonplace; this is exacerbated by the high levels of self-employment (and thus income self-reporting). As Greece struggles to make debt payments on time, it is becoming clearer that the lifestyle within Greece is incompatible with those of its creditor countries. What was once the most prosperous civilization in the world has, in the millennia since, slowly devolved into a failed welfare state. Some would argue that this is all Greece’s fault. After all, they are a sovereign nation who set their own policies, and these policies incentivize sloth. But this is institutionalized, and many of the policies outdate their beneficiaries; Greeks were born into this crisis waiting to happen. Raising the retirement age and cutting pensions, measures Greece had already taken because of past pressure from their creditors, is not something aging Greeks want to impose

upon their own generation. It hurts. Hellenic creditors in the EU, many of them well-to-do, cannot simply forgive Greece’s debt; that would set a dangerous precedent and undermine the Euro’s value. But they cannot pretend like they are not at all at fault here. These loans were predatory in the sense that the creditors knew, given the sociopolitical climate in Greece, that they would likely not see their money again. In reality, Greece should never have been admitted into the Eurozone at all. The government used deceptive, if not outright false, accounting to create the appearance that its budget deficit was low enough to meet the qualifications for entry into the new currency. Greece wanted a less volatile and more broadlycirculated coin and the cachet of membership that its geographical neighbors lacked. More powerful and robust European economies sought to expand the reach of the currency and facilitate trade, knowing that interest rates would be manipulated in favor of the more influential countries’ interests. In defending the Euro, some draw comparisons to the relative success and longevity of the U.S. Dollar. After all, the US and the collective Euro member countries have roughly the same population, and similar to how the Euro is spread across countries, the dollar is spread across 50 different states. But Euro parties are sovereign, with vastly different cultures, social policies, and economic policies. They are capable of unilaterally altering these; the discrepant pension plans and retirement ages are strong examples of this. Additionally, regulation like tax collecting varies substantially in Eurozone countries, but is consistent in the U.S. on a federal level. While there is one central bank in the system, it is not responsible for the welfare of every nation in the same way the Federal Reserve needs to keep the entire United States afloat-U.S. states are not sovereign nations.

Of course, this logic does not demerit the concept of a currency such as the Euro. The Euro demerits itself. As we have seen in Greece, and also in other countries like Portugal and Spain, this system is polarizing at the ultimate expense of all who use the currency. As of publication, the Euro is approaching parity with the US Dollar; it hovers around $1.10, down over 25 percent from the five-year maximum exchange rate in 2011 when a Euro was worth $1.48. The multinational currency has been a revealing experiment, and a Greek departure from the Eurozone would be a revelatory event. Many fear that the Euro could spiral downward after the unprecedented exit of a Eurozone member. Nobody knows exactly what would happen, but after all is said and done the status quo would probably change for the better. Greece would have full control of its currency. European economic powerhouses wouldn’t keep getting dragged down. The immediate future would be tumultuous, and no economist can say with confidence what it would entail. One would hope that the ends would justify the means. No matter how the next few years unfold, it will be tough on ordinary Greeks. Austerity hurts. A very weak new currency also hurts. And if they depart the Euro, there will be no going back.

Samuel Klein is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at klein.s@wustl.edu. 25