The Alberta Keystone XL report funding story centered on a 2014 disclosure reported by The Nation. The publication said Alberta government records showed public funding had gone to IHS CERA, whose research was cited in debates over the Keystone XL pipeline.
Funding Disclosure Raised Questions About Independence
Lee Fang on February 4, 2014 – 4:56 PM ET
Image Info: An aerial view of crude oil production in Alberta, Canada. (Flickr, Howl Arts Collective)
Before the State Department released its controversial Environmental Impact Study last week, a consulting firm called IHS CERA primed the news media by releasing its own study last year claiming that the Keystone XL wouldn’t make a substantial difference in emissions. The report was released as an “independent” study. TheNation.com filed a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act request to the Alberta government, and found that taxpayers in Canada paid IHS CERA hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The heavily redacted contract, a version of which can be found here, provides $325,000 from the government of Alberta to IHS CERA. In addition, public budget documents from Alberta reveal that taxpayers in Canada have provided IHS with more than $545,426 in payments over the last year for energy-related work.
The Alberta government has been one of the most aggressive proponents of the pipeline. Last year, Alberta retained two DC lobbying firms with strong ties to Secretary of State John Kerry, Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti and Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, to push for speedy approval of the Keystone XL.
Source: The Nation
Why Funding Transparency Matters
Research used in major infrastructure and environmental debates can shape public discussion and policymaking. Funding disclosures help readers judge potential conflicts of interest and understand who supported the work.
The underlying policy debate over Keystone XL involved competing arguments about energy supply, jobs, emissions and environmental risk. This post focuses specifically on the reported funding relationship behind one study, not on resolving that broader debate.
For additional background, see our Keystone XL overview.
Conclusion
The 2014 disclosure showed why transparency around research funding matters, especially when studies enter high-profile policy debates.
Source: The Nation archive — February 2014.
