The premier of Alberta, Canada’s main oil-producing province, on Saturday said her government intends to move an act on Monday to shield provincial power companies from proposed federal clean electricity regulations.

Speaking at a morning radio program on Saturday, Premier Danielle Smith, who says the plans of the federal government to cut greenhouse gas emissions will wreck the energy industry, said she was driven to act by frustration with the federal government.

Alberta has long been at odds with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government over energy policy.

Last month, in a victory for Alberta, Canada’s Supreme Court dealt a blow to Trudeau’s government by ruling that federal law assessing how major projects such as coal mines and oil sands plants impact the environment is largely unconstitutional.

“We have been trying to work collaboratively with them on aligning their targets with our targets,” Smith said on Saturday said on the radio program “Your Province. Your Premier.”

“We will not put our operators at risk of going to jail if they do not achieve the targets that have been set, which we believe are unachievable,” Smith said. “We have to have a reliable grid. We have to have an affordable grid, and we’re going to make sure that we defend our constitutional jurisdiction to do that.”

The office of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault was not immediately available for comment.

The resolution will be brought forward for debate and approval in the legislature on Monday, Smith said.

The Trudeau government’s clean electricity regulations are designed to create a net-zero emissions power grid by 2035 by putting limits on when and how emitting power sources, such as Alberta’s natural gas-burning plants, can be used starting in 2035.

The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act would give the province a legislative framework to defend its jurisdiction in areas such as natural resources, gun control, and health and education.

Source : Reuters

The post Alberta to Invoke Controversial Law to Resist Canada’s Energy Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

The possible lapse comes after U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., led a congressional group warning the U.S. State Department in July 2023 to beware of cooperation with China. This group recommended to let the agreement expire without renewal, claiming China has gained a military advantage through its scientific and technological ties with the U.S.

The State Department has dragged its feet on renewing the agreement, only requesting an extension at the last moment to “amend and strengthen” the agreement.

The U.S. is an active international research collaborator, and since 2011 China has been its top scientific partner, displacing the United Kingdom, which had been the U.S.‘s most frequent collaborator for decades. China’s domestic research and development spending is closing in on parity with that of the United States. Its scholastic output is growing in both number and quality. According to recent studies, China’s science is becoming increasingly creative, breaking new ground.

As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public policy. Relations between countries are often enhanced by negotiating and signing agreements, and this agreement is no different. The U.S.’s science and technology agreement with China successfully built joint research projects and shared research centers between the two nations.

U.S. scientists can typically work with foreign counterparts without a political agreement. Most aren’t even aware of diplomatic agreements, which are signed long after researchers have worked together. But this is not the case with China, where the 1979 agreement became a prerequisite for and the initiator of cooperation.

A 40-year diplomatic investment

The U.S.-China science and technology agreement was part of a historic opening of relations between the two countries, following decades of antagonism and estrangement. U.S. President Richard Nixon set in motion the process of normalizing relations with China in the early 1970s. President Jimmy Carter continued to seek an improved relationship with China.

China had announced reforms, modernizations and a global opening after an intense period of isolation from the time of the Cultural Revolution from the late 1950s until the early 1970s. Among its “four modernizations” was science and technology, in addition to agriculture, defense and industry.

While China is historically known for inventing gunpowder, paper and the compass, China was not a scientific power in the 1970s. American and Chinese diplomats viewed science as a low-conflict activity, comparable to cultural exchange. They figured starting with a nonthreatening scientific agreement could pave the way for later discussions on more politically sensitive issues.

On July 28, 1979, Carter and Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping signed an “umbrella agreement” that contained a general statement of intent to cooperate in science and technology, with specifics to be worked out later.

In the years that followed, China’s economy flourished, as did its scientific output. As China’s economy expanded, so did its investment in domestic research and development. This all boosted China’s ability to collaborate in science – aiding their own economy.

Early collaboration under the 1979 umbrella agreement was mostly symbolic and based upon information exchange, but substantive collaborations grew over time.

A major early achievement came when the two countries published research showing mothers could ingest folic acid to prevent birth defects like spina bifida in developing embryos. Other successful partnerships developed renewable energy, rapid diagnostic tests for the SARS virus and a solar-driven method for producing hydrogen fuel.

Joint projects then began to emerge independent of government agreements or aid. Researchers linked up around common interests – this is how nation-to-nation scientific collaboration thrives.

Many of these projects were initiated by Chinese Americans or Chinese nationals working in the United States who cooperated with researchers back home. In the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, these strong ties led to rapid, increased Chinese-U.S. cooperation in response to the crisis.

Time of conflict

Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, scientific collaboration between the two countries increased dramatically – joint research projects expanded, visiting students in science and engineering skyrocketed in number and collaborative publications received more recognition.

As China’s economy and technological success grew, however, U.S. government agencies and Congress began to scrutinize the agreement and its output. Chinese know-how began to build military strength and, with China’s military and political influence growing, they worried about intellectual property theft, trade secret violations and national security vulnerabilities coming from connections with the U.S.

Recent U.S. legislation, such as the CHIPS and Science Act, is a direct response to China’s stunning expansion. Through the CHIPS and Science Act, the U.S. will boost its semiconductor industry, seen as the platform for building future industries, while seeking to limit China’s access to advances in AI and electronics.

A victim of success?

Some politicians believe this bilateral science and technology agreement, negotiated in the 1970s as the least contentious form of cooperation – and one renewed many times – may now threaten the United States’ dominance in science and technology. As political and military tensions grow, both countries are wary of renewal of the agreement, even as China has signed similar agreements with over 100 nations.

The United States is stuck in a world that no longer exists – one where it dominates science and technology. China now leads the world in research publications recognized as high quality work, and it produces many more engineers than the U.S. By all measures, China’s research spending is soaring.

Even if the recent extension results in a renegotiated agreement, the U.S. has signaled to China a reluctance to cooperate. Since 2018, joint publications have dropped in number. Chinese researchers are less willing to come to the U.S. Meanwhile, Chinese researchers who are in the U.S. are increasingly likely to return home taking valuable knowledge with them.

The U.S. risks being cut off from top know-how as China forges ahead. Perhaps looking at science as a globally shared resource could help both parties craft a truly “win-win” agreement.

Source: The Conversation

The post The US and China may be ending an agreement on science and technology cooperation appeared first on Policy Print.

But soon after the app—seen as a direct threat to Twitter, which recently became X— was released, users on Twitter began posting screenshots of Threads’ privacy policy published on Apple’s App store. Some pointed out the app’s terms of service give Meta permission to collect a trove of data, including information on user’s health, financial information, location, search history.

Data privacy experts say that, though this level of data collection is not unique to Threads, users do risk handing over even more personal information to a company that already knows a lot about account holders. And as Meta looks towards turning Threads into a decentralized service, which would allow users to view Threads content across other apps and theoretically give them more control over their data, experts warn that the move could expand the company’s reach across the internet.

Meta’s deputy chief privacy officer, Rob Sherman has said that privacy policy on the App Store isn’t fully representative of the platform’s actual policy and said that users can “choose to share different kinds of data,” in a post on Threads on July 10. 

“In general, Threads collects [the same data that] Facebook and Instagram do, which is much more information than is necessary for the app to function and much more information than is collected on Twitter or many of the other Twitter alternatives,” Calli Schroeder, Global Privacy Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center told TIME in an email.

A review by TIME of Threads and X’s policies on Apple’s App Store shows that X collects much of the same information—such as browsing and purchase history—as Threads, though X’s privacy policy does not include the “sensitive information,” financial information, or health and fitness categories that Threads does. Threads’ privacy policy does not specify what information is considered sensitive.

Threads users require an Instagram account to sign up, which means many may already have the same data collected about them. Despite this, privacy experts still say users should be cautious about signing up for Threads.

“This information will most likely be used to create a more hyper-personalized and targeted experience on the app, shared with and sold to advertisers, or added to the already massive troves of personal data Meta has collected on individuals via its other platforms and outside sources,” says Schroeder. A Meta spokesperson told TIME over the phone that the company provides a number of controls for people to manage how their data is used for ads, such as ad preferences, and the “Why Am I Seeing This?” feature, which provides context about why users are being shown specific ads. 

Here’s what to know about Threads’ data collection policy and plans for decentralization. 

What data can apps access?

According to its listing on the Apple App Store, Threads can collect information about a user’s health, finance, contacts, search history, location, and other sensitive information via their digital activity. 

In his post on Threads, Meta’s Sherman said that users should consult Meta’s own privacy policies to best understand the data the app collects. “The labels are similar to the rest of our apps, including Instagram, in that our social apps receive whatever info (including the categories of data listed in the App Store) you share in the app. People can choose to share different kinds of data,” he said. “Meta’s privacy policy, and the Threads supplementary privacy policy, are the best resources to understand how Threads uses and collects data.”

Experts say that much of the information users agree to let the app collect is already available to companies—especially if they already use Meta’s other services like Facebook or Instagram. 

“Quite frankly, in terms of collection, this is par for the course for everybody,” says Jim Waldo, a professor at Harvard University whose research focuses on privacy.

Even so, Nazanin Andalibi, assistant professor of information at the University of Michigan, says that users concerned about privacy should still proceed with caution, and be wary of “going further into the Meta ecosystem” by signing up for a new app like Threads. 

People use different platforms differently, Andalibi says—for example, you might use Facebook to keep up with family, Instagram for friends, and Threads for work. While they might seem like separate worlds, the information you give to each app all goes back to the same company. 

“Now Meta knows who all your friends are and and who your family’s friends are and it can build social graphs around that to give it a lot of information,” adds Waldo. “If you use more and more of Meta’s apps, they get a fuller picture of your activity.”

Threads’ release in the E.U. is on hold amid regulatory uncertainty. The E.U.’s Digital Markets Act, passed last year, prevents large companies like Meta from sharing user data across multiple platforms. “We would have liked to offer Threads in the EU at the same time as other markets, and the app does meet GDPR requirements today,” Sherman wrote in a Thread, “But building this offering against the backdrop of other regulatory requirements that have not yet been clarified would potentially take a lot longer, and in the face of this uncertainty, we prioritized offering this new product to as many people as possible.”

Meta has come under fire for its handling of data privacy in the past. In May, the company was fined a record $1.3 billion for data privacy violations in the E.U. The company said it had been “singled out” and that it used the same legal mechanisms as thousands of other companies in the E.U. In the U.S. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed an expansion of its 2020  consent order against Meta over its alleged misrepresentation of how much access app developers had to users’ private data. (Twitter recently protested its own FTC consent order around data practices, saying that the watchdog had made “unceasing demands.”)

In 2018, Facebook, which has since rebranded as Meta, disclosed that it had exposed the data of 87 million users of its Facebook platform to third parties, including Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting group with ties to Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign. A year later, the company agreed to pay a record $5 billion penalty to the FTC, one of the largest regulatory penalties ever imposed by the U.S. government on a company. 

What do companies do with data?

Why does Threads want to know things like health and fitness or financial information? The answer has to do with advertising—the company’s bread and butter. Advertising revenue accounted for 97% of Meta’s overall revenue in 2022. 

Data collection allows the app to create a finely-tuned profile of users that could be shared with third-party services, many of which use the information to create hyper-targeted ads, Andalibi says. “All of these different insights or information about people separately can be very sensitive and consequential in certain contexts,” she says.“Imagine targeted advertising in the context of infertility, or someone with an eating disorder seeing ads about weight loss.” (Meta says it made updates to its privacy policy in 2022 that give users more control over the ads they see.)

Threads does not currently support ads, but a Meta source told Axios that it would introduce ads once its “user base reaches a critical mass”. 

Andalibi says there is no need for companies to access and store the data it does. Andalibi points to apps like Signal, which use encryption services to ensure user data is protected. “These are decisions that technology companies make—what data they collect, how they collect it, what they use it for, who they share it with, how long they keep it for,” she says. “It’s not an inevitable choice.”

Plans for decentralization 

Meta has shared that Threads would “soon” be compatible with ActivityPub, a user-centric software  that would give users the option to run their own servers, rather than just relying on Meta’s, known as decentralization. This tool could allow social media users to cross-post and interact with other platforms in what’s known as the “fediverse,” a group of social networks including Mastodon that allow users to communicate across platforms. This should give social media users control of their content, audience and data across platforms.   

“Our vision is that people using compatible apps will be able to follow and interact with people on Threads without having a Threads account, and vice versa, ushering in a new era of diverse and interconnected networks. If you have a public profile on Threads, this means your posts would be accessible from other apps, allowing you to reach new people with no added effort,” the company said in an announcement. 

In theory, this could give users further control over their data, as they’d be able to access Threads without downloading Meta’s platform. But what that means for the data the app is already collecting, and data on other platforms remains to be seen. (Meta told TIME that Thread’s supplementary privacy policy includes additional disclosures around how data is shared with third parties, to reflect the plan for Threads to eventually be interoperable with other apps.) The disclosures say that, even if users interact with Threads through a third-party service, Meta can still collect information about the third-party account and profile. 

“It’s not clear what’s going to happen to all of the data that was collected from profiles before that point,” Andalibi says. Schroeder notes that Meta could end up tracking Threads interactions across servers, widening its reach. “In a way, this could just expand Meta’s reach and ability to see everything people do across the internet,” Schroeder says.

Musk took a different approach earlier this year when he began an effort to start charging for access to Twitter’s application programming interface (API), which lets third-party developers and researchers access Twitter data.

What options do users in search of stricter privacy protocols have? One of the biggest things users can do is simply stay off the app, a move Schroeder says could help put pressure on the company to make decentralization a priority.

“My guess is that Meta will have little incentive to follow through on their decentralization promise if they get mass early buy-in for Threads,” says Schroeder.  “Users may be able to push for decentralization if they refuse to sign up until Threads can be used outside current Meta platforms.”

Source: Times

The post Why Some Experts Are Concerned About Threads’ Data Collection appeared first on Policy Print.

The social media site, owned by CEO Elon Musk, has changed its hateful content policy to remove a sentence about targeted misgendering or deadnaming of individuals, that specifically protects the trans community.

Twitter’s policy, which prohibits “targeted harassment, including repeated slurs, tropes” or content intended to dehumanise protected categories, has been in effect since 2018, prior to Musk’s acquisition.

Prior to this move, the platform’s hateful content policy read: “We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanise, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category.

“This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

The removal of the final section, which referring to deadnaming and misgendering, was described by LGBTQ+ nonprofit GLAAD as “the latest example of just how unsafe the company is for users and advertisers alike”.

GLAAD CEO and president Sarah Kate Ellis said: “This decision to roll back LGBTQ+ safety pulls Twitter even more out of step with TikTok, Pinterest and Meta, which all maintain similar policies to protect their transgender users at a time when anti-transgender rhetoric online is leading to real world discrimination and violence.”

The move means that Twitter is falling behind other social media companies including TikTok and Pinterest, which have both explicitly banned misgendering, deadnaming, misogyny and the promotion of ‘conversion therapy’ practices.

Similarly, Facebook owner Meta has publicly stated that it prohibits “violent or dehumanising content directed against people who identify as LGBTQ and remove claims about someone’s gender identity upon their request”.

It also ignores overwhelming evidence that targeted harassment has an adverse effect on the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ people.

Targeted misgendering and deadnaming were identified by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a form of hate speech in a March report that addressed anti-trans rhetoric at the right-wing conference CPAC this year.

The advocacy group described the acts as rejecting the “existence of trans people” and denying them “recognition and respect”.

“Social media companies committed to maintaining safe environments for LGBTQ+ people should be working to improve hate speech policies, not deleting long-standing ones,” Ellis continued.

Twitter has seen a major rise in anti-trans rhetoric following Musk’s acquisition

After the world’s second-wealthiest man reluctantly bought the platform in October 2022, transphobic remarks were found to have risen by at least 1,458 times per day across the remainder of last year.

Additionally, racist, anti-Black comments increased to a height of 3,876 times a day.

After the CEO claimed that hate speech impressions were lower than expected with a vague graph posted in November, users asked how he was defining hate speech.

A survey in February 2023 also found that 60 per cent of LGBTQ+ organisations and activists had reported an increase in abusive speech since Musk’s takeover.

Musk himself has posted several anti-LGBTQ+ tweets in the past, including claims that a “woke mind virus” needs to be defeated, blaming “communist” universities for his trans daughter’s fraught relationship with him, and making false claims about gender-affirming surgery.

His historically anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric caused several queer pundits to predict that Twitter’s hateful conduct policy would be changed in future.

Source: The Pink News

The post Elon Musk’s Twitter rolls back policy protecting trans users from misgendering and deadnaming appeared first on Policy Print.

Given the recent rise in popularity of AI-powered applications such as ChatGPT, government and business officials have begun to express concern over the potential dangers and risks associated with such technology, including the use of such applications to commit crimes, infringe intellectual property rights, spread misinformation, and engage in harmful bias. In light of this, regulators in multiple countries have begun to consider ways to encourage use of AI-powered applications in ways that are legal, effective, ethical, safe, and trustworthy.

On March 16, 2023, the US Copyright Office launched an initiative to examine the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI technology, including the scope of copyright in works generated using AI tools and the use of copyrighted materials for machine-learning purposes. The UK government published its AI regulatory framework on April 4, 2023. Now, NTIA has issued an AI Accountability Request for Comment (RFC) through which it is seeking more general feedback from the public on AI accountability measures and policies.

REQUEST FOR COMMENT

With the RFC, the Biden administration is taking a step toward potential regulation of AI technology, which may involve a certification process for AI-powered applications to satisfy prior to release. The RFC states that NTIA is seeking feedback on “what policies can support the development of AI audits, assessments, certifications and other mechanisms to create earned trust in AI systems.” In particular, the announcement indicates that NTIA is seeking input on the following topics:

• What types of data access are necessary to conduct audits and assessments
• How regulators and other actors can incentivize and support credible assurance of AI systems along with other forms of accountability
• What different approaches might be needed in different industry sectors, e.g., employment or healthcare

The RFC lists 34 more targeted questions, including the following:

• What is the purpose of AI accountability mechanisms such as certifications, audits, and assessments?
• What AI accountability mechanisms are currently being used?
• How often should audits or assessments be conducted, and what are the factors that should inform these decisions?
• Should AI systems be released with quality assurance certifications, especially if they are high risk?
• What are the most significant barriers to effective AI accountability in the private sector, including barriers to independent AI audits, whether cooperative or adversarial? What are the best strategies and interventions to overcome these barriers?
• What are the roles of intellectual property rights, terms of service, contractual obligations, or other legal entitlements in fostering or impeding a robust AI accountability ecosystem? For example, do nondisclosure agreements or trade secret protections impede the assessment or audit of AI systems and processes? If so, what legal or policy developments are needed to ensure an effective accountability framework?

NEXT STEPS

The NTIA stated that its RFC questions are not exhaustive and that commentors are not required to respond to all of the questions presented.

In the RFC, the NTIA states that it will rely on these comments, along with other public input on this topic, to draft and issue a report on AI accountability policy development, focusing especially on the AI assurance ecosystem.

The RFC was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2023, making written comments due by June 12, 2023.

Our intellectual property team is available to assist those making submissions to the NTIA in response to the RFC.

Source: Morgan Lewis

The post Holding Ai Accountable: Ntia Seeks Public Input to Develop Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

The Budget session of Jharkhand Assembly on Thursday concluded a day ahead of schedule due to the Sarhul festival. The session saw limited government business and the introduction of few bills from treasury benches due repeated disruptions by BJP led Opposition over several issues.

Some of the bills which were passed included Itki Tuberculosis Sanatorium (Regulation of Building) (Amendment) Bill-2023, Durga Soren University Bill 2023 and Jain University Bill 2023 among others. On the last day of session, the state government withdraws six bills which included Industrial Disputes (Jharkhand Amendment) Bill 2018, Jharkhand Contract Labor Regulation and Abolition (Jharkhand Amendment) Bill 2015, Bihar Industrial National and Festive Holiday and Casual Leave Jharkhand Amendment Bill 2015, Jharkhand Shop and Establishment (Amendment) Bill 2018, Jharkhand Labor Laws (Amendment) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act Bill 2018 and Factories (Jharkhand Amendment) Bill 2019.

The month-long budget session witnessed a stormy session due to BJP disputing the House on recruitment policy. Chaos reigned supreme in the Jharkhand assembly as members of the opposition demonstrated, seeking clarification from the government over the state’s employment policy.

The opposition had raised the issue on March 4. It appeared in the press that the government intends to implement the pre-2016 employment policy after the new policy was scrapped by the high court. As per the rule, the government should bring the new policy in the assembly first, but it did not, which is contempt of the House,” BJP MLA Neelkanth Singh Munda said.

Due to BJP disruption, Speaker Rabindranath Mahto had to adjourn the House on several occasions. However, on the last day of session, the Chief Minister spoke on the issue.

Targeting the opposition CM Soren said that retreat on the 1932 khatiyan-based policy was strategic. Reiterating his commitment to enact 1932 Khatiyan-based local policy again in the state, he maintained: “1932 Hamara Tha, Hai aur Rahega”.

The Opposition has been cornering the chief minister since the budget session began on the new job policy which had opened 40 percent jobs for all categories, after the Jharkhand High Court trashed his 2021 policy as “unconstitutional.” The 60 percent of jobs are already reserved for various categories of underprivileged classes.

The budget session was also disappointing for state medicos as much awaited the Medical Protection Bill of Jharkhand seeking to prevent doctors, healthcare staff and hospitals from attacks by patient parties was not passed. The bill was sent to the Select Committee after MLAs cutting across party lines opposed some of its provisions. Moreover, many pending bills which were approved by the Assembly but waiting for the Governor’s nod could not pass.

Significantly, half a dozen bills passed by the state government in the last year and a half could not take the form of law due to Raj Bhavan’s objections. Four bills got Bais’ approval only when they were passed again by the Assembly.

Source : Daily Pioneer

The post Budget Session of Assembly Ends Amid Impasse on Key Issues appeared first on Policy Print.

Environmental and conservation groups say they’re optimistic about changes to the board that oversees natural resources policy in Wisconsin after two members recently resigned, including its controversial former chair.

Bill Bruins and former chair Fred Prehn resigned from the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board at the end of last month, ending its conservative majority and allowing Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees to sit on the board.

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker appointed both to six-year terms, but Prehn ignited controversy after refusing to step down when his term ended in May 2021. While Prehn claimed the move wasn’t political, texts showed he sought advice from conservative lobbyists, lawmakers, Walker and former Republican candidate for governor Rebecca Kleefisch about his decision to remain.

Scott Laeser, water program director for Clean Wisconsin, said the environmental group believes the board’s new makeup will make a difference in addressing policy issues like regulations for PFAS and nitrates in groundwater.

“We watched things like PFAS groundwater standards get rejected by the old board just about a year ago,” Laeser said. “We’re optimistic that the DNR will be able to revisit and redouble efforts to move forward sensible public health protections as a consequence of the turnover on the board.”

While those standards failed to pass in February, the board unanimously approved restarting the process to craft regulations for the harmful forever chemicals last month.

PFAS regulations have been among the most prominent debates before the policy-setting board for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which have been influenced by special interests. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel previously reported that emails showed Prehn’s suggested changes to regulating PFAS in firefighting foam had originally been drafted by the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. The state’s business lobby and industry groups have voiced concerns that PFAS regulations are too costly and questioned the science behind the state’s recommended groundwater standards.

Scott Manley, the group’s executive vice president of government relations, declined to comment on Evers’ appointees and the board’s shifting makeup. 

“As always, our expectation for the Natural Resources Board is that they follow the law, and pursue regulations that are fair, cost-effective, transparent, achievable, and no more stringent than necessary to meet the environmental goals established by the Legislature,” Manley said.

Evers appointed Milwaukee resident Sharon Adams and Drummond school teacher Sandy Naas to the board in April 2021. While Adams serves on the board, Prehn had blocked Naas from taking a seat until his resignation. The governor’s appointees are serving on the board while they await confirmation from the Republican-controlled Senate. The two are among around 180 people that have yet to be rejected or confirmed. 

Republican Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this week that lawmakers will vote on Evers’ nominations. Even so, he told the paper some appointments to the DNR board were a “little more political” for lawmakers, warranting a closer look. LeMahieu’s office declined WPR’s request for comment Thursday. 

Tony Wilkin-Gibart, executive director of environmental firm Midwest Environmental Advocates, said Adams has worked for many years on water justice issues while Naas has more than 30 years of conservation experience. He said the board’s politicization has created a backlog of updates to environmental regulations not only for PFAS, but around 20 other substances that pose hazards to human health.

“The Senate certainly should respect the fact that the voters have spoken that they want action on climate, that they are concerned about clean water, and those should be the criteria by which they evaluate Natural Resources Board Member appointees,” Wilkin-Gibart said.

This week, Evers also appointed Viroqua farmer Paul Buhr to fill the seat left open by Bruins. Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden, an organic dairy farmer, said Buhr embodies ideals that will help guide policies to protect the environment and residents. Von Ruden said he’d like to see the board take a renewed look at regulations scrapped by the DNR in 2021 that would have restricted manure spreading in areas sensitive to groundwater pollution from nitrates, the state’s most widespread contaminant.

“I think they need to bring it back because once the groundwater is contaminated, it’s hard to clean it up,” Von Ruden said.

Fred Clark, executive director of conservation group Wisconsin’s Green Fire, said he hopes the board’s new makeup will yield progress on those water quality regulations along with respect for science, citizens, and DNR staff that he feels has been too often missing.

“Seeing outside attorneys and lobbyists carry more weight than the department’s own staff is just not a good look,” Clark said.

Regardless of its makeup, any policies advanced by the board are subject to approval by the Legislature and Evers. But Clark said the board has authority to sign off on items like the state’s wolf management plan without legislative approval. Management of the state’s wolf population is among issues that generated fierce debate in 2021 between Evers’ DNR, Prehn and other conservative board members.

Despite that, advocates for conserving fish and wildlife are optimistic the board will strike a balance among those with differing views on resource management, including Mark LaBarbera, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. He highlighted areas of common ground in the last year, including the unanimous approval of a conservation easement for the Pelican River Forest.

“I believe that people will come in with an open mind and listen to the stakeholders and listen to constituents in order to make informed decisions for the good of all,” LaBarbera said.

Source : WPR

The post Environmental, conservation groups optimistic shifting makeup of DNR board will yield policy changes appeared first on Policy Print.