Anti-fracking scandal: More junk 'science'
Having let environmental extremism trump its own rules about relying on genuine science, the Obama administration's National Park Service has withdrawn an anti-hydraulic-fracturing document that cited a New York Times op-ed as scientific evidence.
The park service document, a public comment on a proposal to allow fracking on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property, expressed concern about “the possible spill-over effect onto national park lands, which are often near or even surrounded by BLM property,” particularly harm to air quality, The Washington Times reports.
Among supporting “evidence” the park service cited was a July 29 New York Times op-ed in which Anthony R. Ingraffea — whose work has been challenged by fellow researchers and rejected by the Department of Energy — said fracking causes leaks of methane, a greenhouse gas.
Writing with egg on his face to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who chairs a House subcommittee on public lands and environmental regulation, park service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said the document shouldn't have been submitted, he didn't review it first and it should have cited peer-reviewed studies, not that op-ed. Mr. Bishop said it “illustrates a shared agenda between the administration and anti-energy special interest groups.”
That “shared agenda,” long obvious to those not blinded by ideological zeal, is confirmed by this National Park Service gaffe, which makes clearer than ever what truly drives this White House's approach to energy and environmental policy.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.