Deliberation Nation Response

On February 25, 2015, I went to the Deliberation Nation Event “The Keystone: Pennsylvania and Our Energy.” Similar to the group in our section, this group discussed Pennsylvania energy. I thought that this would be an interesting topic because I always used to have this discussion in my environmental science class in high school. However, it was a very biased discussion, and I knew this deliberation would attempt to look at all sides for once. Their first approach was the discussion of current energy sources like coal, natural gas and oil. The second approach discussed fracking, and the third approach discussed renewable energy forms like biomass, wind energy, solar energy, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy. The group did a fantastic job of monitoring the discussion, and there was never an awkward silent moment for the entire two hours. I really liked the way that they set up the discussion. They asked a lot of questions and kept the discussion moving smoothly, with various team members interjecting personal references and specific examples when necessary.

For approach one, there was discussion as to whether or not the next generations will face a complete loss of non-renewable energy. Some sources say in the next 150 years, the world’s supply of non-renewable energy will be lost, while other sources say that the world has a supply that will last more than 100,000 years. It truly depends on the source. The EPA and similar organizations argue that there must be an immediate progression to renewable energy, while fracking companies and petroleum engineers argue that time is not an issue. When there is such great statistical disagreement, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. Basically, the group discussion for approach one concluded that there should be a push to renewable energy forms. However, in order to do so there should be cheap, vocational schools designed to help the workers who have built their lives on non-renewable energy to make the journey to renewable energy. Otherwise, there will be a significant economic downturn. It must be noted that the group decided that non-renewable energy is a short term economic solution, but a long-term economic problem. The group for the most part was also quite skeptical of nuclear energy because of the associated radioactive waste and threats of explosion.

As the discussion progressed to approach two, fracking, the tone remained neutral. Each side was discussed. There are documentaries that have shown that fracking can lead to flammable water, higher cancer rates and birth defects. Fracking companies are currently offering 50,000 dollars to buy land from people and use it for fracking. The companies offer to pay for any health damages, but the group discussion concluded that this is pointless. Once there is physical damage, no amount of money can come to the rescue. However, as with everything, money speaks louder. On the other side of the discussion, fracking companies have shown to be very community based and are working to appease those from whom they wish to purchase land. The questions that the group concluded with were what are the thousands of chemicals that are specifically used in the fracking process, and are the cancer statistics accurate?

Finally, for approach three, everyone was in agreement that renewable energy is a good thing. It is a trend that will only continue, and economically, it will be very beneficial as renewable energy will lead to an explosion of jobs. However, the biggest problems associated with renewable energy are aesthetic appeal (believe it or not, people are opposed to wind turbines because of appearance), expense, waste (What do we do with solar panels once they are no longer functional?) and a lack of education. For example, Switzerland has been very successful with geothermal energy, but most people do not even know how it works. One attendee to the discussion, was kind enough to explain the process of geothermal energy, where the 56 degree Fahrenheit core of the Earth is used to heat and cool a house with much less energy.

In the end, the conclusion group asked for all participants to take a survey on energy in Pennsylvania. There was no real consensus on what should be done. A lot of questions remain because it is hard to know who and what to believe. It was decided, however, that the federal government should make it their responsibility. Energy is not necessarily a state right and it should be viewed in terms of the country, not in terms of the individual states. If one energy program were to be developed for the nation, instead of a separate program for each state, the problem would not be as complex and negotiations may be easier. As a generation that may be facing severe energy issues in the future, we must ensure that we are not ignorant to the games of the media and that we stay informed about the crisis at hand.

The group did an excellent job of framing the issues. They had a plethora of questions to ask, that led to a great deal discussion. Their questions also highlighted the values they were attempting to target in the audience. For example, they examined values such as citizenship and community, when asking the audience to discuss what the involvement of federal, state and local government should be and when asking about the economic, environmental and health effects of the different approaches on communities.

My only confusion regarding their deliberation was the significant amount of participation each group member had. Instead of letting the attendees take over, a group member spoke almost every other comment. It certainly kept the conversation flowing, but I was surprised they did not force the participants to talk more. Overall, it was a phenomenal deliberation and I am glad that I got to take part!