From: Climate Progress
CREDIT: Calin Tatu/Shutterstock
This week the Colorado Senate Appropriations Committee defeated a bill that would have commissioned a study
on the health effects of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the
state’s Front Range. It was the second time Representative Joann Ginal
(D-Front Range) had unsuccessfully proposed a study looking at
fracking’s health effects, but she indicated she’ll be bringing it up
again next year. Opponents of the study claimed that it was politically
motivated and would be biased, and that it would be an unnecessary
duplication of existing studies. But they mentioned no specific
provisions of the bill that would cause bias, and were not able to
provide recent studies on the impact of fracking on public health.
Frank McNulty (R-Highlands Ranch), who opposed the study, told
ThinkProgress the “specter of political motivation” made it suspect.
McNulty said he was concerned the study wouldn’t be “done in a way that
can be scientifically validated,” but did not provide further details.
Also of concern was the fact that it would duplicate existing studies,
he said, though his office did not provide examples despite requests
from ThinkProgress.
A look at the bill itself
revealed no obvious cause for concern for drilling advocates. One
representative of the environmental community would be present on the
study’s advisory committee, balanced out by a representative of the oil
and gas industry. But if claims of politicization and duplicated studies
don’t hold much water, what could be behind the opposition? MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment