Daniel B. Markind, Esq.
Weir and Partners, LLP

Dan Markind asks some philosophical questions about energy development, articulates some important principles from his perspective and asks for opinions.

This will be unlike any other post I’ve sent on energy issues.  In fact, the mailing list is completely different.  Many who receive the normal shale updates may not get this one, and others on lists from which I’ve received emails are added, including many in the clergy and academia.  I’m not entirely sure of the rhyme or reason, and if you get this and have no idea why, chances are I might not know either.  In the end, it is a sharing of some personal views and a request for those of others, including and especially those far more educated about religion, philosophy and theology than I.

Isaac embraces his father Abraham after the Binding

The genesis of this post came from the Biblical Story of the Binding of Isaac.  The story is common to all three monotheistic faiths (although in Islam it generally is l thought to relate to Ishmael and not Isaac).  One traditional interpretation is that Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  Putting aside the grotesque nature of a father not defending his own child, it is not Abraham but an angel of God who saves the boy, informing Abraham, in the words of Rabbi Jacob Rosner of Or Shalom synagogue in Berwyn, Pennsylvania, “Do not pollute the heavens with the blood of an innocent child.”

It is that concept that I seek to explore, only in a much less dramatic sense.  At some point, the extraction of any resource, be it mineral or human, comes with byproducts so detrimental that it destroys the good you attempt to achieve.  Where is that point with energy, specifically with the “new” technology combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling?  Perhaps more appropriately, how do we look for it?  All energy development – indeed all human endeavor – involves environmental consequences.  How do people in the energy field, in government, in environmental organizations, in academia, and just regular citizens, ask the right questions?

The basic scriptural context I find both simple and unfortunately of little help.  The general proposition is that we should use the natural resources we have but not go beyond that which is absolutely necessary.   As the Qur’an says, “But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.”  Both the New and  Old Testaments  teach that although God allows people to utilize elements of nature, God retains ownership of all its creation.  The Old Testament refers to the  “Shmita”’ in which productive agricultural ground lays fallow one year in seven to rejuvenate.  And the Qur’an, coming from a desert, arid land, is very cognizant of living with scarcity.  But what would these theologies say about the balance between the non-renewable resources that power the current world and the renewable resources that may, but are not proven to be able to power the future?

I claim no real knowledge of these theological issues, just enough to appreciate that I might be my own worst enemy.  I welcome guidance from those more learned than I (many of whom are receiving this post  for the first time).  We in Pennsylvania have been struggling with these issues for almost a decade, but without a historical framework as the industry is so new.  Where do the people of Maryland, who are grappling with extraction issues in their two far-west counties, or Oregon which is the terminus for many of the existing and proposed pipelines, look for guidance?

Maryland’s two western counties, where there’s Marcellus Shale waiting to be developed.

In this context, please permit me to suggest five principles:

First, I would be wary of those who assume that the presence of any resource in the physical world represents God’s favor.  For decades it has been a tenet among the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula that the oil beneath their sand was God’s gift and evidence of its approval of their philosophy, religion and way of life.  Has God now shown that God extends its real favor to the people of Pennsylvania and West Virginia?  I would argue that God’s favor does not come from the presence of a natural resource, but from what the humans who possess or obtain the resource do with it.

Second, I would question those in the “environmental” movement (which terminology I find objectionable, not being willing to admit that my commitment to my planet is less than theirs) who either believe or suggest that an energy or environmental nirvana is attainable.  Every type of energy we have discovered to date – from coal to solar – contains negative environmental consequences.  For everything there is a balancing act of burdens and benefits.  As all three faiths believe that we humans are imperfect beings, we always must deal with imperfection and make the best decisions we can.

Third, and related to the second point, I would warn against comparisons of a quantifiable present against a theoretical future.  It is always easy to compare the current situation, with its discernible consequences, to a postulated alternative in which humankind produces all that we need without a downside.  But, as I do not believe that scenario exists (see point two above), these comparisons will produce foolish decisions.  I know of few people, if any, in the renewable energy field who believe we now possess the technology for renewables (outside of nuclear) to assume the lion’s share of our energy needs.  If that happens, it will come with its own environmental cost.  To take what we have and seek to discard it for an uncertain technology based solely on belief strikes me not so much as science but as religion itself.

No energy development is without impacts.

Fourth, and perhaps contrary to the third point, I caution against those who state that future technologies that might make the present energy system obsolete are not attainable.  As someone who grew up watching television with rabbit ears, the experience of watching my 10-year old explain to me creative ways to use a smartphone is both unsettling and almost mystical.  If our faiths teach us anything, I would suggest that it is we should never stop reaching for the stars, nor putting our current resources to future research aimed at a better future.  The thirst for knowledge is a precept of all three faiths, and I would hope that we accept it as a license to keep questioning and exploring.

Finally, while we may look to the metaphysical for existential guidance, I fear we cannot forget that our world is here on Earth.  As such, we must care for it yet be aware of the very human, political consequences of our actions.  Energy independence has seemed a pipe dream for the United States since the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Arab Oil Embargo.  Is it wise to throw that opportunity away for the sake of an unproven environmental future?

Russian Iskander missiles.

Last week, Vladimir Putin moved his Iskander ballistic missiles to Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between Poland and the Baltic States.  These missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads.  Europe will be powerless again this winter to defy Putin as they rely almost entirely on his energy to heat their homes.  This situation was avoidable but the political will in Europe and the United States wasn’t there.  Do we please whatever God people believe in, if they believe at all, by putting ourselves in this geo-political situation?

I welcome other people’s responses and suggestions for guiding principles.  Instead of talking past each other and achieving little, maybe we should seek to engage one another, and at least decipher the right questions to ask and how to ask them.

Editor’s Note: I agree with all five of the principles Dan articulates. His piece reminds me of the “Stewardship Week” many Christian churches mark, although I hear less and less about it these days. The idea, of course, is that we have an obligation to God to husband those good things given us in the form of natural resources. It is in line with a conservation phiosophy that incorporates “wise use” of resources on behalf of man as opposed to environmentalism that puts the Earth before the needs of man. Conservation incorporates most of what Dan suggests and, in my view, that’s where we need to be.