Energy Companies Trying To Abuse Intellectual Property Law To Hinder Research Into Impact Of Fracking

from the but-of-course dept

While fracking is quite controversial, you'd think it shouldn't be controversial to want to get data and study the impact of fracking. After all, if there really isn't that much harm to it, then wouldn't that be good for the companies involved in fracking? And if, as some argue, fracking has seriously dangerous consequences, shouldn't we want to find that out as well? Of course, that assumes that companies involved in fracking are actually interested in doing what makes the most sense, rather than what makes the most money (I know, I know... stop laughing). And, here's where intellectual property issues are getting involved. A group of top intellectual property lawyers are pointing out that fracking companies are actively resisting a plan in Alaska to study the potential environmental, health and safety risks of fracking by arguing that it would violate their trade secrets. The professors point out that this is ridiculous:

[W]e remain concerned that the fracking industry has opposed the reasonable efforts of regulators throughout the country to have access to information about the exact chemical composition of fracking fluids. Such access should not only be uncontroversial, as trade secret information is shared with regulators at all levels of government and in a range of industries, but should be standard operating procedure for any regulatory entity charged with stewarding our nation’s natural resources. To deny regulators and the public access to such information is to prevent an evidenced-based analysis of the EHS impacts, if any, of fracking. It is, in sum, an effort to render the regulation of fracking as a game based upon guesswork and supposition rather than hard data. Moreover, we believe that the alleged competitive harm associated with the possible disclosure of these trade secrets (if they qualify, in fact, as trade secrets) to the public is at best overstated, and at worst reflects a skewed placement of commercial interests over the broad interests of the public in transparency, accountability and safe environmental management.

We don't talk that much about trade secret issues around here, usually covering other areas that are often lumped together in the "intellectual property" bucket. However, there's been an increasing push by some big industry players to increasingly rely on and expand trade secret law in all sorts of dangerous ways -- not to actually "protect trade secrets," but to avoid regulations (such as here) and to limit and stifle innovation and competition. Unfortunately, it seems likely that issues around trade secrets are quickly going to be nearly as important as the fights over things like copyright, patents and trademarks in terms of how they're abused by companies.

Filed Under: alaska, environment, fracking, regulations, trade secrets

DailyDirt: The Disappearing Bee

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

People usually don't think too much about how important bees are to the quality of human life. As pollinators, bees play an important role in the survival of crops that depend on them. The mass die-off of bees, also known as "Colony Collapse Disorder," can have detrimental effects on economies that depend heavily on pollinator-dependent crops. Scientists are just starting to figure out what might be causing these mass die-offs, while others are working on alternatives to using bees for pollination. Here are a few links related to the disappearing bee.

• A new study has found that pollen contaminated with a wide variety of pesticides and fungicides could be responsible for the mass die-offs of bees. Bees that ate contaminated pollen were less able to resist getting infected by a parasite called Nosema ceranae, which has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder. On average, the contaminated pollen contained nine different pesticides and fungicides. [url]
• The once-common-but-now-rare Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) has been spotted in Washington state for the first time since the mid-1990s. This particular bee species has a very unique "white butt" that makes it instantly distinguishable. A queen and a few other bees were also spotted, and they may be the only population of Western bumblebees in the state. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is hoping to conserve and help rebuild the population. [url]
• University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources is looking at using leafcutter bees as an alternative to disappearing honey bees for pollination. While leafcutter bees are more expensive and management intensive, they're as good as or even better than honey bees at pollinating certain crops, such as alfalfa seed, strawberries, and melons. [url]
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture is studying the use of blue orchard bees (aka orchard mason bees) as a replacement for honey bees. Blue orchard bees can pollinate a variety of crops, including almond, peach, plum, cherry, and apple, and they're extremely efficient. For fruit trees, it takes only 2,000 blue orchard bees to do the work of 100,000 honey bees. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bees, blue orchard bees, colony collapse disorder, crops, environment, farming, fruits, fungicides, honey bees, insects, leafcutter bees, pesticides, pollination
Companies: usda

Why Politicians Forcing People To Change Lightbulbs Is A Bad Idea

from the taking-away-natural-incentives dept

Earlier this month, we pointed out that Ireland had joined Australia in setting a date for banning incandescent lightbulbs. There had been talk about the US following suit, and now it (almost) has, approving legislation that would phase out inefficient bulbs by 2012, such as the incandescents that most people still use. Once again, though, we have to point out how counterproductive a move like this seems. Already, more and more people were moving to more efficient bulbs naturally, as they realized how much money they actually saved with them. For those who complained about the type of light given off by the fluorescents, that just gave more incentives for the makers of CFLs to make the light better match incandescent bulbs. The competition also gave more incentives to make CFLs cheaper and even more efficient, as well as coming up with ways to make the (already seriously overhyped) worries about mercury, less of an issue. However, if politicians take away the competition from incandescents, it suddenly gives the makers of CFLs a lot less incentive to come up with these kinds of innovations and breakthroughs.

Filed Under: energy, environment, greentech, lightbulbs, politics

How Many Irish Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?

from the it's-not-a-joke dept

American politicians have been toying with such legislation for a while, and Australian politicians have already approved similar legislation, but it appears that Irish politicians are in something of a rush to ban incandescent lightbulbs. New legislation would ban the sale of the traditional lightbulbs as of January 2009 -- basically just one year. The Australian plan, that was approved earlier this year, would phase out the bulbs by 2010. While we can understand the basic reasoning, it's still unclear why a full ban is really necessary. Fluorescent bulbs keep getting cheaper and cheaper (and better and better in quality) than incandescent bulbs. They last so much longer and use so much less energy that it won't be long until most people voluntarily move to fluorescents, without any unnecessary ban on incandescents.

Filed Under: energy, environment, greentech, ireland, lightbulbs, politics

How Many Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? We'll Find Out Next Month

from the bright-idea dept

The environment continues to be a hot-button political issue, as it presents a chance for politicians to score some easy points with the public by mandating all sorts of new laws and restrictions to prove their green credentials. But this political grandstanding overshadows the fact that many green or clean technologies offer economic benefits to those who use them -- for instance, making facilities more energy-efficient isn't about companies just wanting to be nicer to the planet, it's about cost savings too. One example of this in the consumer realm is fluorescent lightbulbs. Despite their higher upfront cost, their longer life and lower power consumption offers substantial savings over traditional incandescent bulbs. Given these cost savings (as well as the ongoing improvement in the bulbs' quality and decrease in price), it would seem to be a matter of time before fluorescent bulbs will become more popular and they push incandescents out of the market. But that hasn't stopped politicians from all over to push for laws banning or phasing out incandescent bulbs, and it now appears that the US Congress will add such legislation to a wide-ranging energy bill that's expected to be voted on in October. The legislation would begin phasing out incandescents in 2012, and then by 2020, would call for lighting standards that could be met only by compact fluorescent bulbs or ones with equivalent efficiency. Lighting manufacturers aren't happy with the timetable, saying it's too quick, and add that they're exploring several different technologies to improve the efficiency of lighting, including more efficient incandescent bulbs, new types of halogen lamps and LEDs. It would certainly seem that the market will sort this issue out on its own, as technology improves and more consumers become aware of the cost savings that fluorescents and other types of bulbs can offer. But it would also seem that the brownie points on offer are too hard to refuse for politicians who want to make it look like they're making a difference to the environment.

Filed Under: congress, energy, environment, greentech, lightbulbs, politics