In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated his support for the development of clean energy sources that will create jobs and protect the environment. But while developing clean energy is essential for moving us into the 21st century energy marketplace, the way we build our clean energy future also matters. We must develop energy without harming public health and the environment.

A natural gas extraction process, commonly referred to as fracking, was cited in last night’s State of the Union as an example of clean energy. But using fracking to extract natural gas is anything but clean. In fact, the process produces more greenhouse gas emissions over time than traditional methods of oil drilling or coal mining, according to a Cornell University Study. In addition, fracking poses a great risk to public health and property, as evidenced by the multiple documented cases of severe water contamination near fracking sites, including water than can be actually set on fire as it comes out of the faucet.

Though Obama pledged to "develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk," it is unclear as to how this would be accomplished. A loophole in the 2005 energy law (often called the Cheney or Halliburton loophole) granted oil and gas industries an exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. This means the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot require drilling companies to disclose the toxic chemicals used in fracking, or limit their activities in order to protect drinking water. And, following an order from Congress, the EPA has not yet finalized an important national study on the potential impacts of fracking on drinking water. Thus, the public remains in the dark about the chemicals used in fracking, as well as the risks they pose to their drinking water.

The good news is that President Obama pledged to require "all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use." Government agencies and the public certainly need more information on the health and environmental risks of fracking, and we're glad to hear President Obama promise to make this information available. But in addition to full disclosure on the public and environmental impacts of natural gas extraction, protecting public health requires the development of consistent standards and safeguards to ensure that communities near fracking sites are fully protected. To develop these standards, full oversight authority must be restored to the EPA.

It may be possible to use fracking to extract natural gas safely, under the proper conditions and with sufficient controls. But without more information on the risks of fracking, and without the proper safeguards in place, we are taking a huge gamble with our water supply, farmland, and the health and safety of our people by aggressively pursuing this type of natural gas extraction. This is a bet we simply shouldn't take - without a full review of our risks and without the proper safeguards in place.

On Jan. 11, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released greenhouse gas (GHG) data to the public for the first time. Through an online tool, the public will be able to access critical air pollution data. With this new data, the public can hold industry accountable to ensure that emitters take responsibility for the way they are contributing to climate change.

The online tool presents 2010 GHG data from 6,700 large facilities around the country in nine industry groups, including suppliers of certain fossil fuels and industrial gases. The public will be able to use the data to analyze sources of GHG pollution in their areas, compare facility and industry performance, and eventually track trends. Enterprises can use the data to compare their performance against other companies in their sector, to set a baseline for their own reductions in carbon pollution, and to increase efficiency and save money. State and local officials can also use the data to compare the effectiveness of their policies and practices with those operating in other parts of the country. The 2010 GHG data shows that Texas has the highest total reported emissions in the country, and Indiana the second highest. Not surprisingly, power plants were the largest stationary sources for direct emissions in the country by far, followed by petroleum refineries.

The site offers various options for searching and viewing the new data. For instance, users can search for data by facility, location, industrial sector (e.g., power sector, chemical industry), and the type of gas emitted (e.g., carbon dioxide). Data can be viewed on maps of the nation, specific states or even counties. Highlighted blue circles denote the number of facilities reporting in each location. Users can also view data on lists (i.e., data tables), bar and pie charts, and tree maps. Viewing the data on the tables (rather than on the maps or charts) allows users to categorize the data according to the facilities or industries that produce the most pollution. The tool allows users to download data in Excel files, which can be used to conduct further analysis and includes data on parent companies.

One short-coming of the data, which EPA cannot control, is that it reports emissions from a limited set of facilities - those that are required to report to EPA. There is no data from transportation or agricultural facilities. On the plus side, an additional 12 source categories will begin reporting emissions data this year.

Public reporting of pollution is a powerful tool in the hands of citizens - it fosters public awareness and/or confirmation of concerns about local environmental problems. It gives citizen activists the evidence they need to push for significant reductions in emissions in their communities. After the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act created the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a national database of toxic emissions reported by industrial sources was established in 1986, the private sector has reduced the amount of toxins it releases by more than half. We hope this online tool will achieve similar results in reducing emissions.

Last week, Congressional Republicans slipped provisions into a payroll tax bill that would try to force the President to make an early decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project. Under the bill, President Obama would face a 60-day deadline to rule on the project, which has not yet received the legally required economic, environmental and safety reviews.

Though Congressional Republicans claim the project would create jobs, the Keystone XL is not the job-creation panacea it's being made out to be. In fact, the Keystone project could actually cost taxpayers jobs.

The $7 billion Keystone XL would transport tar sands, which are more corrosive than crude oil, from Alberta, Canada, through America's heartland to Texas. Thousands of communities face the prospect of having a major new pipeline flowing under their homes and businesses with all the risk of leaks and explosions that come with it. The Keystone oil pipeline project is opposed by many public interest organizations, but is supported by industry groups and many Republican lawmakers.

The Job Creation Myth

The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project could create 20,000 "direct" jobs, most of them temporary. However, the oil company's numbers are grossly inflated.

The job estimate is based on a poorly documented and unsubstantiated study commissioned by the oil company itself, referred to as the Perryman Group study. The study inflates the job estimate by calculating jobs on a yearly basis, not the total number created as a result of the pipeline. For instance, employing 10,000 people for two years would equal 20,000 jobs by the company's count. Additionally, the estimate includes non-U.S. jobs created in Canada, "where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed."

The oil company's 20,000 job estimate is inconsistent with government and academic studies. The State Department, the lead federal agency on the pipeline project, estimates that the project would bring 5,000 to 6,000 temporary construction jobs. An independent assessment by Cornell University's Global Labor Institute found that the Keystone XL would create between 2,500-4,650 temporary positions for two years, with only about 50 new permanent pipeline jobs in the United States.

The Keystone Pipeline Could Cost Jobs

The Keystone XL, according to the Cornell study, could actually kill more jobs than are created in the long run. Any jobs created by the project could be outweighed by the pipeline's hidden costs that slow job growth or cost jobs in other sectors: higher gas prices for Midwest consumers, toxic oil spills, and damages to local agriculture and tourism. For instance, TransCanada has already admitted that the project would increase gas prices for Americans by driving up the price of heavy crude in the region. The project could cost Midwesterners 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gas and diesel fuel. The higher fuel prices for consumers in the Midwest would kill thousands of trucking and tourism jobs.

The history of pipelines also shows that spills are unavoidable. In 2010, pipeline spills and explosions in the United States killed 22 people, released more than 170,000 barrels of petroleum, and caused $1 billion dollars in damage. In its first year of operation, over thirty spills have occurred with the Keystone pipeline (Phase 1 and 2) in Canada and the United States, despite claims that the Keystone XL meets "world-class safety and environmental standards."

Conclusion

The highly exaggerated estimates from industry need to be exposed and the long-term potential costs of this project must be carefully weighed. Federal officials are taking the time they need to gather information and appropriately examine trade-offs regarding gas costs, water safety concerns, and public health risks from spills. We need to support scientific and expert evaluation of the evidence before rushing into a project that will have significant and long-lasting impacts on the country.

Eliminating lead in children's toys. Requiring seatbelts in automobiles. Reducing coal dust in mines. Preventing unsafe drugs and foods from entering the marketplace. Outlawing predatory loan rates and lending practices. If the bill deliberately mislabeled the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) had been put in place in 1960, none of these protections for the American people could have been developed.

A paper the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards (which I co-chair with Public Citizen's Robert Weissman) released Nov. 16 describes a number of federal standards and safeguards that have been designed to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the American people that would have been blocked by the RAA (H.R. 3010/S. 1606) had it been law in earlier decades. The paper also spotlights several pending rules that are unlikely to go through should the RAA pass – rules that implement financial, workplace, and consumer protections that have already been passed into law by Congress.

Because the RAA is focused on changing regulatory processes, it hasn't received much attention in the traditional media or from many citizens and public interest groups who are intensely concerned with defending and improving health, safety, and environmental standards. This is a huge mistake. This bill is a backdoor way for conservatives to prevent the implementation and enforcement of decades of public protections – without actually having to vote against the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act. Instead of putting themselves on record as allowing higher arsenic levels in our water and higher levels of air pollution, the RAA allows conservative members of Congress to simply "muck up" the implementation and enforcement of these laws by allowing more special interest influence of regulatory agencies, more litigation by deep-pocketed industry lobbyists, and ridiculous hurdles to rulemaking.

What's at stake here is nothing less than the system of public protections that has been built up over the past six decades – the system that led to dramatic improvements in air and water quality, food and product safety, and public health. While trade associations and business lobbyists constantly complain about the government regulations that produced these outcomes, businesses have learned to adapt, the economy has expanded and innovated, and our quality of life has continued to improve. The RAA's attack on that system puts these advances at risk.

What is perhaps most disturbing is that the assault on our regulatory system is coming at a time when we have a record number of imports from foreign countries and when our domestic regulatory agencies have neither the staff nor the resources to oversee the flood of imports. We need to be strengthening our regulatory and enforcement structures, not weakening them. This cynical effort to use the anxiety the public is feeling about the economy could wreak deep and lasting damage to our regulatory system. The American public needs to weigh in against this dangerous legislation, and the media needs to help them understand what is at stake.

Editor's Note: This piece was cross-posted on The Huffington Post.