When I first checked out the schedule of deliberation events to see which one I would like to attend, I realized that I had already missed an entire week of them, and that there only a few days left to catch one. After looking at the times of each event, there was only one that I could possibly attend, and that was after cancelling an important adviser meeting. Even worse -- it was at 9:30 am. Because of this chain of events, I went into the deliberation already annoyed at it. However, the event itself was surprisingly pleasant and very interesting.
The topic of deliberation was PA's energy options for the coming years. Now, I would consider myself somewhat of an environmentalist, so this topic intrigued me. I was very ready to discuss it; even with people I had never met before. Coincidentally (or maybe not), the event was held in a place called "New Leaf Initiative". I had been in this facility before and, as Kevin quoted me in his blog, would describe it as an Internet startup waiting to happen. There are images of lightbulbs on each wall, with bright colors and modern furniture popping out at you every which way you look. It is the perfect place for someone like me to spew liberal ideas about what we put in our cars.
The event started off talking about peak oil, which many people believe to be an imminent threat to our energy supply. The first attendee to respond initiated the discussion by talking about how the free market would ensure that peak oil would not be as tragic as we think. I countered by saying that peak oil is not the biggest problem on our hands at the moment, but rather carbon emissions, and that the free market would not respond to the growing threat of climate change -- which is, in my understanding, facilitated by the use of fossil fuels. I wasn't surprised that I ended up being the second attendee to speak. I actually assumed I would kick things off, so I was doing better than expected at this point in the deliberation.
The first option that was presented was natural gas, mostly focusing on hydraulic fracturing, or as it is commonly known, "fracking". Fracking seems to be a very powerful buzzword inmost people's heads, and many people have formed opinions about it without really knowing what it is. Luckily, the deliberators seemed to have a good understanding of the process of fracking and what it entails. Many expressed the sentiment that, although fracking's safety is questionable, it is one of the best options we have in terms of finding more ways to fuel our busy lives. For one, it would not require a massive infrastructure change, since natural gas is a fossil fuel just like petroleum. However, environmental concerns were raised, and not just by me either. One thing that slightly irked me during this section was the fact that the professor seemed to have a lot to say. I felt like she was going out of place whenever she brought forward a new point, since it was technically her students' assignment.
The next two points were talked about much less due to the time we spent deliberating natural gas and fracking. These two options were nuclear energy and other sources of renewable energy, such as solar power and biofuels. The two students who presented the nuclear option were surprisingly knowledgeable about the topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to be nuclear engineering majors. With this option, we concluded that nuclear could be a good bet, but the prospect of a meltdown, however unlikely, is too scary for many people, and the startup cost is also very high. High startup costs were also brought up in the discussion on renewable energy, although we all agreed that the human race should eventually end up with a completely renewable energy source at some point -- most likely the sun.
In conclusion, this was a surprisingly enthralling deliberation, despite the early timing of the event. It helped that this is a topic that I'm passionate about, but,then again, which topic am I not passionate about?
Gabe, this was an enjoyable reflection to read. Not only did you offer useful commentary on the deliberation's substance itself, but you also weave storytelling elements and demonstrate a high self-awareness of your own discussion tendencies. (I'm sending you a virtual high-five for holding off long enough to be the second, not the first, participant at the event. That's restraint, young man, that's restraint.)
ReplyDeleteYour comment about timing -- i.e., holding the deliberation at 9:30 in the morning -- was interesting. It's highly situational, but timing DOES affect how people are (or are not) willing to engage. (I suspect that our class, even if comprised of the same people, might have a different feel to it if it were scheduled in the afternoon, or even slightly later than the morning.)
Regardless, I'm glad that you were able to overcome the initial annoyance and engage in the event. I'm certain that your contributions were very valuable. Thanks for sharing your insights here -- they're well expressed!