There’s still no decision on whether drillers will have to reveal what they pump into the ground during fracking, plus more news, this week in CIB:
Administrative Watch: No Call Yet on Fracking Fluids Disclosure
The Mining and Energy Commission (MEC) ended its November meetings with no decision made on whether the companies involved in drilling will have to disclose the chemicals used in the fracking fluids they pump into underground shale rock formations. Disclosure of toxic chemicals with the potential to contaminate groundwater supplies remains one of the hottest unresolved questions within the ongoing debate over fracking for gas in North Carolina.
MEC members were set to vote on disclosure rules for the industry last spring, but backed off after last-minute objections by the Halliburton corporation persuaded leaders of the state Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to pull away from supporting the rules. More recently, pro-industry state legislators have signaled their readiness to push legislation overriding any decision by MEC to require even partial disclosure.
The MEC itself is divided between members who want public disclosure rules for the chemicals used in fracking fluids, and other members who claim that there is no risk to the public and the industry should be trusted to police itself.
MEC chair James Womack said that the commission would discuss the matter again in December, in anticipation of a vote in January. (This report is drawn in part from 11/22/13 coverage in the Raleigh News & Observer.)
Climate Change Update: Climate Summit Adopts Deforestation Plan
The two-week global climate summit in Warsaw, Poland, concluded last week with modest progress, most notably in a measure adopted to slow deforestation. The adopted plan features economic incentives for countries to reduce emissions which come from deforestation, and a way for developed nations to finance those incentives.
Mixed in with that achievement were setbacks such as regression from Japan on its commitment to emissions reductions, and continued disagreement over action timetables between the more long-established Western industrial nations and the rapidly-growing industrial economic powers of China and India.
The meeting, officially the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (or COP 19), saw representatives of 195 nations continue a long-term effort to hammer out international agreements to slow the rate of climate change produced by human activities. The next meeting will take place next year in Lima, Peru, followed by a critical meeting in 2015 in Paris. That is the deadline for adoption of a new agreement to replace the frayed and expiring Kyoto Accords.
Education & Resources: Future of NC’s Coast
How is ongoing sea-level rise expected to affect the future of North Carolina’s coastline? A majority of current NC state legislators may want to continue to stick their heads in the sand over that question, but we don’t have to.
NC Policy Watch recently sponsored a program presentation by a genuine expert on that question. Rob Young, geology professor and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, led the program. A video of the full event is now available for viewing online here.
The Other Side: Tame ‘Think Tanks’ Target Scientists and Faculty Critical of Their Patrons and Their Policies
There was a fair amount of attention paid last week to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the UNC Center on Poverty by the Civitas Institute for emails and other records of a UNC faculty member after he penned an article critical of the McCrory Administration. See the story here.
As the Facing South article detailed, FOIA requests of this nature from advocacy organizations on the right side of the political spectrum have become widespread. Other examples have targeted proponents of environmental policies anathema to the fossil fuel industry and its political allies. The cases include a 2011 request by the “American Tradition Institute” (ATI) (a group which tries to discredit the science of climate change) for the emails of a University of Virginia professor and climate change scientist, following an effort by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli to target the same researcher. Also noted are the 2011 request by the Wisconsin Republican Party for records of a University of Wisconsin environmental historian critical of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, an advocacy group responsible for several anti-environmental legislative templates), and requests from ATI targeting climate scientists at two state universities in Texas.
Of course, entities like Civitas and ATI, which masquerade as research organizations (“think tanks”) are nothing of the sort. Instead, they are advocacy groups with flagrant policy biases which dictate their conclusions on any topic. Such groups are a legitimate part of the political scene, certainly–but mainstream journalism outlets should be embarrassed by a lazy tendency to feature their work product as “studies” worthy of independent news attention.
Here’s a challenge for mainstream reporters and editors: When you run a story about a group like Civitas (or one of its “studies”), be sure to point out who funds it. So Civitas is going after a critic of the McCrory Administration? Perhaps its funding from Pope family foundations–and the fact that Art Pope is McCrory’s budget director–deserve prominent mention. The John Locke Foundation is attacking the development of light rail public transit? Might not its close connections with the oil-baron Koch family and the other organizations they finance deserve prominent mention?
In a political campaign, reporters would never think of quoting a campaign spokesperson without noting their affiliation. Readers deserve the same service in policy debates wherein the political actors are speaking through their proxy groups.
That’s our report for this week.
