Issue #449: A Big Fracking Problem

[Drachmaland]

The Issue:

#449: A Big Fracking Problem [Czechostan; ed:Nation of Quebec]
The Issue
Natural gas extraction has been thrust into the political spotlight after a corporation proposed utilizing hydraulic fracturing to boost the production of shale gas. After weeks of protests, a crowd of lobbyists and environmental protesters have barged into your office and demand that you finally make a decision.

The Debate
1. "Any opposition to hydraulic fracturing has been born out of ignorance," claims Shale The Love lobbyist @@RANDOMNAME@@ after tossing some impressive looking pie charts on your desk. "If we further hydraulic fracturing, we can finally be independent of foreign natural gas. Do you really want to continue paying dictatorships like Maxtopia for their expensive oil? Just think of the advantage producing our own natural gas will give us. Look at the charts that clearly show how many jobs this will create in rural areas. We should be encouraging fracking operations and cracking down on these environmental terrorists who would be happy to send us back to the Stone Age."

2. "I don't think you understand the magnitude of these environmental issues," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the organizer of the anti-fracking protest movement No Fracking Way. "Fracking can pollute the air and contaminate groundwater with toxic chemicals, which will end up in million of people's drinking water. Weren't you guys paying attention when fracking operations caused all those earthquakes in Blackacre? Never mind that they're on a fault line! We must put an end to fracking and start investing into green energy sources like wind, solar, and tidal power. We'll never run out of those clean energy sources, but we will run out of clean air to breathe."

3. "There's always room for compromise," chimes in @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of your top aides famous for diffusing tension in your office. "We obviously can't ignore the benefits of fracking, but we can't turn a blind eye to the impact it would have on the environment either. Why not allow fracking, but only in areas of @@NAME@@ where there are no major populated areas? I hear that the land in the Northern @@ANIMAL@@ Mountain Range is just ripe for hydraulic fracturing. There is a @@ANIMAL@@ preservation area nearby, but it's not like they're going to be protesting." 

 

Points to pay attention to:

• Option 1, “cracking down on these environmental terrorists”: A clear indication that freedom of speech is impaired, and thus Civil Rights will suffer.
• Option 2, “[...] and start investing into green energy sources”: This option is not just anti-fracking, but it is also pro-environment (it provides an alternative).
• Option 3, “there is a @@ANIMAL@@ preservation area nearby”: This option is NOT middle-ground (as falsely presented), because the environment will still suffer.

Actual results:

• Option 2 in Drachmaland (Civil Rights Lovefest, 88/100/91), which already has a pristine environment, had the following effects:
  • Tax rate became 91.2% (from 91.0%)
  • Environment spending went up, as well as Education (to a lesser degree). The money came from Healthcare, Commerce, and Public Transport (which decreased).
  • Heart Disease cause of death went significantly down, while Old Age and Lost in the Wilderness went up.
  • Eco-Friendliness, Employment, Environmental Beauty, Health, Human Development Index, Income Equality, Lifespan, Safety, Scientific Advancement, Weather: increased.
  • Mining, Most Pro-Market, Obesity, Toxicity, Unexpected Death Rate, Wealth Gaps, Weaponization: decreased.
• Option 2 in an Anarchy (96/98/100) with a mediocre environment exhibited a striking difference: Tax Rate went down to 36.6% (from 39.7%). In governmental spending, more areas were decreased (compared to Drachmaland). This country had a Cancer rate of 5.1% and it vanished!

Suggestions:

• If you are pro-environment, choose Option 2.
• If you don't have a good environmental state, and you want to change that, choose Option 2.
• If you are hardcore pro-market and you don't care about the environment, then choose Option 1.
• If you are a Psychotic Dictatorship and you want to keep your Economy imploded as well, then dismiss the issue.
• This is WIP and the issue brand new, so expect more stats coming in soon.
• If in doubt, just ask — that's what this thread is for, anyhow.   

[Drachmaland]

Keep in mind that Option 3 hurts the environment without necessarily boosting the Economy; in a Father Knows Best State nation with its Freedoms at 66/74/28, Option 3 left Economy (along with the other two Freedoms) unchanged.

[North Pacific Spy]

So Option 2 in general is the best option for the issue?

[Drachmaland]

It is, unless you want very low Business Subsidization.