This article is authored by Binnu Jeyakumar and originally appeared on the Pembina Institute's blog.

“The days of denial are over,” said Environment Minister Shannon Phillips, kicking off the 2015 Alberta Climate Summit held last week in Edmonton. She was sending a message that Alberta’s attitude and commitments around climate change are changing.

The summit focused on exploring viable options for progress on climate change, with the participation of stakeholders from across the spectrum. More than 300 people filled the room, representing the oil and gas industry, the electricity sector, First Nations, unions, environmental groups, municipalities and the provincial government. The excitement was palpable as participants discussed both the reasons to take action and the opportunities now available.

The summit explored policy solutions in several areas, including carbon pricing, renewable electricity and energy efficiency. If you want more context on climate policy in Alberta, Pembina’s backgrounder from August is worth a look.

Carbon pricing

The morning included a discussion of British Columbia’s $30-per-tonne carbon tax, and the need for better communications about the success of carbon pricing. The panel emphasized the need for a better-informed conversation about what emissions sources could be covered and exempted, the effective price level, and the different ways to use the revenue that is generated.

On the topic of effective pricing, Nicholas Rivers of the University of Ottawa pointed to various studies that link price and impact, saying “We are looking at a $100-ish price on carbon by 2050.”

Of course, carbon emissions are not just carbon dioxide. Drew Nelson, of the Environmental Defense Fund, reminded attendees of the climate impact of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The United States has introduced cost-effective regulations that reduce methane leaks in the oil and gas sector, and enacting similar regulations in Alberta could result in significant reductions in emissions which total to well over 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

Coal phase-out and renewables

“What is our electricity system designed for?” was the question posed by Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. He argued that to make sustainable reductions to carbon emissions, the entire electricity system — rather than just a few components — has to be reviewed. Alberta needs to evaluate the best ways to incentivize capital investment in renewables, learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions such as Ontario. Some options to consider include centralized procurement of electricity, or making retailers responsible for achieving a certain proportion of renewables in the generation mix.

There is also a need to manage the climate impacts, as well as the local environmental and health impacts, of Alberta’s existing coal-fired plants. The closure of TransAlta’s coal plant in Centralia, Washington, was discussed as a case study for how Alberta could negotiate an accelerated phase-out of coal.

Energy efficiency

When talking about cutting emissions, there’s a compelling case for energy efficiency. It’s the cheapest way to make more energy available, it creates jobs, it reduces operating expenses and it cuts down fossil fuel use. As Alberta adopts a new building code, the province should look to B.C. and Ontario — two provinces that are making huge strides in promoting building efficiency and sustainable urban development — for ideas on how to save energy.

There was no shortage of energy in the summit room, with people staying long after the end of the event to continue their discussions. That enthusiasm was perhaps driven by a sense of urgency, as the economic, health and environmental risks associated with the status quo become more and more evident. But it also speaks to a distinct sense of excitement in the province about the tangible actions that Alberta can and should take in the near future.

Presentations from the 2015 Alberta Climate Summit are available online here.

There are also a number of ways to get involved:

• Take the Alberta government’s climate change survey (open until September 18)
• Send your recommendations to the Climate Leadership Panel
• Stay tuned to the activities of the Energy Futures Lab, a platform to discuss, experiment and innovate in Alberta’s energy system.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) has published a timely "back to school" report concluding that "frackademia" is alive and well at U.S. universities. 

While only focusing on the people and money behind five recent studies, PAI's report sits within a much broader universe of research in its Frackademia Guide. The new report serves as an update of its February 2015 report titled, "Frackademia in Depth," a title poking fun at hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") front group Energy in Depth (which did not react kindly to its report).

As PAI points out in the new report's introduction, the results of many recent science studies (some funded by the industry) have tarnished the reputation the industry spends so much money aiming to keep shiny. These include studies on fracking's climate impacts and health impacts, environmental justice issues associated with fracking, among others.

Given that backdrop, the oil and gas industry has swept in and funded fresh studies whose outcomes were more favorable — aka "frackademia" — on topics ranging from fracking's groundwater impacts, environmental impacts and economics. 

Rick Berman, Tim Considine

Among the most compelling findings in the PAI investigation is that Rick "Dr. Evil" Berman, infamous for creating industry-funded front groups in many policy arenas via his consulting company Berman & Company, has gotten into the frackademia game.

The Berman connection becomes clear when investigating the men behind the curtain of a study published in September 2014 titled, “Economic and Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas Development Offshore the Delmarva, Carolinas, and Georgia,” which makes the case for offshore drilling in the Atlantic. As PAI explained, it was funded by Interstate Policy Alliance, "a project of the Employment Policies Institute."

What's Employment Policies Institute? A Berman & Company front group.  

"Though Berman and Company does not disclose the identities of its clients, the firm and its network of front groups have recently begun attacking fracking opponents and climate change regulations, suggesting it has been retained by the oil and gas industry," explained PAI.

view this map on LittleSis

Just as important as Berman, in this case, was the author: Timothy Considine. Considine has been embroiled in other frackademia scandals, including a 2010 study eventually retracted and reissued by Penn State University after it was revealed that he didn't disclose its funder, the Marcellus Shale Coalition lobbying organization.

He's actually featured twice in the PAI report. The other recent Considine frackademia example came in the form of a study titled, “The Economics Impacts of the Proposed Natural Gas Severance Tax in Pennsylvania," funded by the American Petroleum Institute. 

That report predicted brutal impacts for Pennsylvania's economy if its legislature adopts a severance tax for those fracking in the state's Marcellus Shale. 

Harvard, Syracuse

Harvard Business School and Syracuse University also feature prominently in PAI's report. The Harvard Business School example, in particular, serves as almost a perfect case study of how frackademia works in action. 

“America’s Unconventional Energy Opportunity,” the title of Harvard's report published jointly with Boston Consulting Group in June 2015, was featured in an opinion article by The New York Times writer David Brooks and in an uncritical article distributed to newspaper wires worldwide by Reuters.  

Like a prominent 2013 Environmental Defense Fund-convened study on the climate change impacts of fracking, the steering committee of the Harvard study was a who's-who of people with industry ties. 

Image Credit: Public Accountability Initiative

As PAI pointed out, co-author "David Gee, a [Boston Consulting Group] managing partner, has worked for the energy industry for more than 30 years, with stints at Baker Hughes, PG&E, and AES Corporation."

Another co-author not mentioned in PAI's report is Michael Porter, a faculty member of the Harvard Business School and formerly of the Monitor Group, a prominent consulting firm that went out of business in November 2012. Monitor Group has been involved in undisclosed pay-for-play before, conducting de facto shadow public relations work for former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.  

Energy in Depth also stars in PAI's report in the form of a Syracuse University study on fracking and groundwater contamination that served as a counter of sorts to earlier Duke University fracking groundwater contamination studies. 

That study was promoted by both EID and Natural Gas Now, the latter often featuring the work of Tom Shepstone, a former EID employee and current industry consultant. As it turns out, the study was covertly funded by Chesapeake Energy, though the co-authors claimed they had “no competing financial interest” in any entities potentially impacted by the study's results. 

Lead author Donald Siegel "had failed to disclose that, in addition to providing the data upon which his conclusions were based, oil and gas driller Chesapeake Energy had also funded the study and paid Siegel directly," wrote PAI.

"Further, one of Siegel’s co-authors, Bert Smith, is a former Chesapeake employee who now works for Enviro Clean, a firm that consults for Chesapeake Energy. While Smith’s employment at Enviro Clean was noted when the study was published, the fact that his employer works for Chesapeake Energy was not."

On at least one instance, PAI pointed out, Siegel actually wrote an article on EID's website.

Tobacco, Climate Denier Playbook

As highlighted many times in the report, journalists often take press releases from universities and write stories about these studies without following the money.

"Since the tobacco industry pioneered the use of compromised scientists to sow doubt about the harmful effects of smoking, corporations have employed a complex of industry-funded academic institutes, public relations outfits, lobbying firms, and independent consultants to provide seemingly independent support for their lines of business," explained PAI.

PAI has done a great public service by naming names and doing the work journalists all too often fail to do to reveal conflicts of interest.  

Photo Credit: Jannis Tobias Werner | Shutterstock

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.