Before I dive into the topic of net neutrality, I'd like for you to think about how quickly this page loaded. Chances are it loaded pretty quickly. As of right now, pages on the internet load at the speed they do for three large reasons: How data dense the page is (i.e, what kind of content is on it video, images, text, etc), how fast your internet connection is, and how much traffic their is/how the servers are handling it. This is net neutrality. In short, net neutrality ensures that all information accessed over the internet is accessed impartially and no website be given an advantage in how their data is delivered to internet users.


Without net neutrality, ISPs (Internet service providers) could block legal sites (particularly ones that host competing ISP advertisements), and sell a 'fast lane' for the content of websites willing to buy access to that fast lane. Allowing this to happen would cause a lot of problems, perhaps the largest of them being that the internet would be broken up into a class system of websites, premium and non-premium. The premium websites would get more traffic because their service is better, and only people who are truly devoted and willing to forgo long loading screens would stick with non-premium sites. But that's not all, once the premium sites start offering the same service as the non-premiums, then there's really very little reason not to switch over, thus removing a lot of the competition on the web.
​

Thankfully, the FCC  (Federal Communications Commission) issued the Internet Policy Statement (seen here) laying out basic rules/groundwork to ensure net neutrality. As of right now, it has been proposed that broadband internet be classified under title 2 (common carriers) of the Communications act of 1934 in an effort to make ISPs follow rules similar to those of telephone companies. But even with these rules in place, ISPs are still fighting back. Verizon, the US' largest mobile phone company challenged the FCC's authority by taking legal action against the FCC's decision to ban ISPs from prioritizing and banning certain websites (seen here). 

While net neutrality seems to be here to stay, it's important that we take action to ensure that. To help the cause, you can visit savetheinternet.com and spread the word, as well as sign the petition on their site (linked here for your convenience). 

 In the past few years, people have discovered a wealth of natural gas in the shale, which reaches across Pennsylvania to New York, Ohio and West Virginia. Pennsylvania saw this as an opportunity to make money and let Oil Companies perform Hydraulic Fracturing with loosened restrictions on safety. While this is providing jobs across Pennsylvania, many people are becoming sick and finding that they are unable to drink their tap water.

For my lobbying project, I have chosen to lobby against the Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale. Specifically, I would like to see our government in Pennsylvania begin to tighten the restrictions on the Oil Companies and force them to reveal what harmful chemicals they put in the water used in the process. This would be helpful for, not only the citizens who have these chemicals in their water, but workers at water treatment plants who are finding that they don't have enough technology to fix the water that comes to them. This is what I want Governor Corbett to do. 

Many groups are asking for the same thing I am. My dad receives numerous emails asking him to sign petitions against fracking. Groups such as the Environmental Protection Agency, who are doing their best to study the effects of Fracking on local rivers. See Epa's Work HERE. Another group, Protecting Our Waters, is organizing protests and mass call-ins to the Governor. A link to their website can be found HERE

However, there are other groups that have high stakes in the Oil Companies and are doing everything they can to keep Fracking as it is now. Big Oil Companies like Cabot Oil and Gas say on their website "345, 000 people employed" and "Landowners paid 30 billion in royalties". But, after snooping around on their website, I found that they aren't as friendly and helpful as they seem. In one of their documents they say that they will gladly screen your tap water upon request however, they will not help you understand your results nor do they say much to how they would fix any damage. The other problem with the opposers of my lobby is that they are involved in the government. In one article it says that Governor Corbett gave authority over Fracking to Walker who was once a CEO of an energy company and owns several trucking businesses (Fracking requires A LOT of trucks). To see this article click HERE. 

Recently, Governor Corbett did respond to the pleas of lobbyers like myself, he ammended the Gas Act, which would require companies to provide detailed plans on the impacts of every well they make for fracking. This Act can be found HERE.

While I think this is a big step, I still believe we need to act more harshly to radically change the way these companies are running.

Obesity is a problem everywhere in the US, and it's everybody's problem.  According to a study, said the Society of Actuaries in a press release, the economic cost of obesity to the US is about $270 billion a year.  This is an appallingly high price we pay as a country for something as preventable as obesity.

Few groups are at higher risk for obesity than Philadelphia children of low socioeconomic status, of which an estimated 51% are obese.  Much of the obesity problem among Philadelphia's low-SES kids comes from the fact that they live in food deserts, or areas in which healthy, affordable food is hard to come by.  The USDA's handy Food Desert Locator shows various food deserts along the Schuylkill, and a large one in northeast-most Philadelphia.

The first step to lowering this number seems obvious to me: provide Philly's low-SES children with healthier food by having public schools serve more nutritious, less fattening lunches.  I'm certainly not alone in my thinking.  Michelle Obama's highly publicized "Let's Move!" campaign seeks to lower child obesity rates by providing access to healthy food for all families and helping children become more physically active.  In December of 2010, President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act into law, authorizing funding to increase low-SES kids' access to healthy food.  The Kids' Safe and Healthful Foods Project seeks to implement science-based guidelines for food and drinks sold in schools, as well as more rigorous food safety guidelines, and ensure that schools have the resources to train cafeteria workers and provide necessary equipment.

The most outspoken opponent of these anti-obesity efforts is probably My Food. My Choice!, which argues that the government is overstepping its boundaries by trying to control what people eat.  The group was founded by conservative columnist Orit Sklar, who gained notoriety after suing Georgia Tech for the right to verbally harass gay students.  Mayor Nutter also proposed a two-cents-an-ounce soda tax as a way to reduce soda consumption among Philadelphia children, as well as bring in an estimated $77 million.  However, after much lobbying by the American Beverage Association, the measure was rejected by the city council.

I think that My Food. My Choice! has a valid concern, but they feel more threatened than they should.  It seems to me that they've misinterpreted trying to help people get access to healthier food as trying to cut off access to unhealthier food.  The current obesity epidemic is a serious threat to our country, and arguing about what counts as the government infringing on our right to exercise dangerous habits will only prevent us from giving help to those who need it most.

When I first started to brainstorm topics to lobby, I wanted to focus on environmental protection. Ever since my trip to the Dominican Republic, I have been interested in this issue. I started to look at statistics about Philadelphia's environmental protection policies, as compared to those of other cities. To my surprise, I found that Philadelphia is actually doing a good job, and is also steadily improving. Mayor Nutter even has a website dedicated to his Greenworks Philadelphia plan. At first, I thought I would move up to state level, and focus on Pennsylvania's plentiful environmental policy issues. I considered talking about fracking, but many other students in my class were already focused on that issue.

In the end, my topic found me: I was reading Scientific American, and spotted a brief article about the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (PDF here), a bill that would act to control the dangerous chemicals that so often show up in everyday items. The act, introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, would give the Environmental Protection Agency more freedom – and responsibility – to test and regulate chemicals. Currently, under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the EPA has little power over industry's use of chemicals.

As I researched the Safe Chemicals Act, I found a group, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which strongly supports the bill. The describe themselves as "a nationwide effort to pass smart federal policies that protect us from toxic chemicals". They are pushing hard for reform on the Toxic Substance Control Act, and think that the proposed Safe Chemicals Act would be a major improvement. They want to "hold industry responsible for the safety of their chemicals and products".

The American Chemistry Council is perhaps less enthusiastic, but not against the bill. According to a statement by President and CEO Cal Dooley, the ACC is "strongly aligned on the need to modernize the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act." However, they believe that Lautenberg's proposal "contained provisions that would not have produced the benefits intended by its authors" and "could put American innovation and jobs at risk."

I believe that the Safe Chemicals Act would be a step forward. According to the article in Scientific American, "even extremely low levels of some environmental contaminants may have significant damaging effects on our bodies." This is a serious risk, and I believe that the health and safety of all citizens should be a high priority for the government.