The release this month of the draft National Climate Assessment garnered many headlines. But little notice went to the fact that it was released at all. Earlier versions of this assessment of climate change's impacts on the U.S. were suppressed — and even "unpublished". But a few voices did take note of the Assessment's release.
Sunlight cures many ills. A month after watchdog Sheila Kaplan exposed a White House blackout of an EPA report on children's environmental health, the Obama administration uncorked it. Of course, the timing may have had something to do with the election as well; EPA announced its publication January 25, just a few days after the inauguration.
Resilience means survival as a growing number of budget-strapped states states face environmental disasters -- often climate-related -- with inadequate help from the federal government.
"The Railroad Commission of Texas regulates one of the most advanced industries in the world — oil and gas drilling. Yet the commission's software systems, many of its rules and even its name are from another era."
President Obama's vow to address climate change in his second Inaugural Address January 21 could actually prove more than bold words. Despite the failure of the 111th and 112th Congresses to pass a cap-and-trade bill or any other major climate change legislation, Obama clearly has the power to limit greenhouse gas emissions himself, using his Supreme Court-tested executive authority under the Clean Air Act and other powers. Key Congressional Democrats are urging him on.
EPA bowed to industry, ruling in a January 3, 2013 memo that local drinking water utilities no longer have to notify their customers of contamination in writing. "The memo fails to set clear standards for electronic notification and delivery and makes it likely that segments of the public will have less access to these reports," the Center for Effective Government wrote in response to the EPA memo.
The Plum Book, a list of most major federal political appointments that is published every four years, has long been a starting point for juicy stories — but hard to use because it was only published in print. Now it has been digitized. That makes it grist for data journalists.
Should state freedom-of-information laws disqualify people or organizations from out of state from getting government records? Led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, some 53 news media groups have urged the US Supreme Court to say no.
The suicide earlier this month of open-access activist Aaron Swartz brings again to the fore the ongoing difficulty journalists have accessing published scientific studies that bear on key current and future policy issues. Photo of Swartz, credit Flickr/peretzp.
Congress' motives for the nondisclosure bear scrutiny. Is it merely to sound smart or hog the glory of releasing them? A recent report by Manuel Quinones in E&E Daily suggests another motive: fiddling with inconvenient truths (or untruths).
Advertisement 
