For my first White Paper Proposal, I was in inspired by the recent resignation of Michael Krancer as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Krancer has been a highly controversial member of Governor Corbett’s cabinet since he was appointed. He has been known for butting heads with the EPA, for denying the existence of Global Warming, and has been heavily criticized from environmental protection groups and lobbyists for being more in favor of industry than actual environmentalism.

I found the news interesting because of his extremely controversial policies. Mr. Krancer was known for often undermining the duties of his own department, actively working against environmental protection laws in the interest of more drilling in the Marcellus Shale region. Despite being the head of the Department of Environmental Protection, he had no interest in conserving the environmental, but rather in enacting policies to remove existing protections and promote industry.

I think a case like this would make for an interesting White Paper topic, mainly because it raises the question, is it ethical to take over and destroy the work of a certain interest group because you do not believe in it? Is the proper way to make policy changes you want to see to undermine your own political structures? If you honestly don’t believe what environmentalists are saying, should you still place an environmentally unfriendly puppet as the head of the Department of Environmental Protection to further your own goals?

This paper is relatively dynamic, as both the environmentalist aspects and the policy of the ethical way to best serve your political interests can both be expanded. This could be a paper analyzing the environmental lobby, or it could be a political paper on sabotaging your own government. Either way, I think it is a compelling story and should eventually culminate into an interesting White Paper.

One response »

  1. Jordi says:

    Is problem clear?

    Not so much. You are right that an avowed “anit” person running an agency they are opposed to is interesting. AS a policy issue though, it seems hard to do. Like, would you argue one has to pass an ideological test to be the head of an agency?

    But, maybe you could look at PA DEP in general. Like, how IS the environment? The agency? You could make that the problem and focus solutions on how ti can straighten its work.

    Is possible audience clear?
    Not yet.

    What kind of source is used?
    News? So Society.

    Overall quality (engagement with source, quality of thought)
    Ok. THe political context is interesting, but as context more than the precise problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s