Today, 350.org has made 2 invalid claims on its facebook page related to Keystone XL and the Environmental Impact report.

First: They posted an image on their facebook page claiming that John Kerry made the statement that the pipeline poses no environmental threat. This is entirely false. That claim is made by the environmental impact study, which was not produced by John Kerry.

Second: they posted a link to a Grist article, written by the director of the organization that created the false image, implying brazen corruption in the State Department, because the study was funded by the owners of Keystone.

Unfortunately, the article implies that this is a startling development. It’s not.

It is standard operating procedure, and has been for quite some time, because we’ve gutted the funding of our regulatory agencies. The process that was used is not remotely unique to KXL.

This is what happens when we do nothing but cut, cut, cut, while ignoring the purpose of the budgets that are being cut. If we want independent review, we have to be willing to pay for the expertise needed to conduct such reviews. For far too long, it’s been a case of getting what we pay for – studies with no real independence whatsoever.

And yet legal experts said it had become common for companies applying to build government projects to be involved in assigning and paying for the impact analysis. Some say such arrangements are nearly inevitable because federal agencies typically lack the in-house resources or money to conduct these complex studies. “What’s normal is deplorable, and it’s NEPA’s dirty little secret,” said Mr. Echeverria, acting director of the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law School, referring to the law. He said federal agencies are supposed to review the findings, but often lack the expertise to do so.

I happen to believe the current law regarding EIS studies should at least be revised to require contractors to pay the US government to institute independent reviews, but as of today, under current law, the review being done by a company with ties to the contractor is exactly what is expected to happen.

The important thing relative to the items on 350.org’s facebook page: the claims in the report are not the claims of the State Department, never mind Secretary Kerry, or, as the Grist article states, “John Kerry’s State Department.”

Why was the report released, last week, if the State Department wasn’t trying to give the go-ahead to the project?  

When the State Department received the report, it became public record, and was thus released as part of the normal process for such studies. The release does not indicate approval.

The next step for the State Department is to review the study’s claims, and for the public to take advantage of the public comment period. The State Department and either accept the report, or reject it.  It will be very helpful to know where the State Department (and Secretary Kerry) stand on this, but as of now, we don’t know – despite the implications in a certain viral image.

All the poutrage ginned up over people following the process that everyone follows is enough to make your head spin. And pointing fingers at Kerry because his agency posted the report it was supposed to post, is a waste of energy.

I am a big fan and early supporter of 350.org. This kind of sloppy promotion of a non-troversy (the false implication of Kerry) does the organization a disservice, by creating the impression that they play fast & loose with the facts. That’s not a good thing for an organization dedicated to getting out the truth about warming in the face of intense, well-funded opposition.

I hope they will correct the error, and will do a much better job of investigating claims before promoting false, if “catchy” images and hyperbolic stories from questionable sources.

In the mean time, public comment period is in effect, so it’s incumbent upon US to use it.