HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Pennsylvanians are growing worried about the environmental consequences of natural-gas drilling in the state, according to a new poll released by the Ohio River Valley Institute.

It showed the majority surveyed support Attorney General Josh Shapiro's recommendations to tighten regulations on fracking, including 77% who support assessing sources of air pollution and 82% in favor of requiring safer modes of transporting waste.

The poll, conducted by Data For Progress, surveyed nearly 650 voters from across the state.

Ralph Kisberg, co-founder of the Responsible Drilling Alliance, said the results of the poll show it is time for the state Legislature to make efforts to better transition to clean energy.

"We need to move faster," Kisberg asserted. "The people understand this, they understand that it's all tied in with the climate situation and that will get extremely expensive for the country unless we deal with it. And the country is beginning to deal with it, but if Pennsylvania wants to hold onto its position, it's going to jeopardize its economy, frankly."

Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. Gas giant Shell is building a $6 billion dollar ethane cracker plant northwest of Pittsburgh. A majority of voters polled were against tax breaks for the plant.

In contrast, the Pennsylvanians polled approved of public spending on clean-energy projects, with 77% saying they believed it would have a positive impact on the state.

Kisberg noted there are ways the state could move forward with its clean-energy transition, including a severance fee on the natural-gas industry.

"We can take that revenue and use it for subsidies for lower-income people to make the transition in their homes with energy efficiency," Kisberg suggested. "And get everybody involved in this transition based on the fact that we have some low-hanging fruit in the tax world that we don't take advantage of in the state."

Kisberg added interested individuals should contact Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Loyalsock Township, who chairs the Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. Earlier this year, Yaw introduced a municipal "energy choice" bill, which some environmental advocates argued could protect polluting forms of energy such as coal and gas.

DES MOINES, Iowa -- This fall, the Iowa Utilities Board is hosting meetings to inform the public about a proposed underground pipeline, which would transport carbon emissions for sequestration.

Supporters argued it can help reduce harmful emissions in the atmosphere, while environmental advocates countered the risks are far greater than any proposed benefits.

The line, which would run across 30 Iowa counties, would feed into a larger underground system moving carbon dioxide captured from biofuel plants to North Dakota, where it would be stored.

Carolyn Raffensperger, of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said while it sounds like a noble idea, it's counterproductive.

"It requires so much more energy to collect the CO2 from, say, an ethanol plant, that you're going to increase the emissions in carbon dioxide simply through the increased need for power," Raffensperger asserted.

And if there's a leak, she pointed out, there could be serious health risks with transporting and storage of the carbon dioxide, which also could be compressed into liquid form for renewable fuels.

Summit Carbon, the company behind the project, said construction and operations will create jobs, but opponents said the firms benefit from federal tax breaks at the public's expense. The hearings for impacted counties began this month and run through mid-October.

While the company insists the storage would be safe and secure, Raffensperger, who is based in Iowa, emphasized landowners near the proposed route should know it would be classified as a hazardous liquid pipeline. She added there are better ways to spend resources to combat harmful emissions.

"This is a solution for the fossil-fuel industry to keep doing business as usual," Raffensperger remarked.

Instead, she urged policymakers to focus on expanding clean-energy projects, such as wind and solar, while bolstering infrastructure that aims to improve water quality. Her group claims there would be just as many job opportunities with such investments.

Meanwhile, public comments can be submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board either online or through the mail.

HELENA, Mont. - An event coming up soon looks at the prospects for clean energy in Montana.

The Energy Future Summit will be held virtually Oct. 1, hosted by the Northern Plains Resource Council. Topics for sessions at the one-day summit will include a just transition to renewable energy and the role of power companies in that transition.

Northern Plains board member Joan Kresic said she hopes the summit can demystify the process of how energy is produced, and how it gets to the average home or business to turn the lights on - a process that can be hidden.

"How we create energy, how it gets to us, whether it's good for our environment or whether it creates further harm, especially climate chaos, really matters," she said.

She said the subject of a just transition is important for Montana as supporters of clean energy tackle how to ensure fossil-fuel and coal-dependent workers will get good-paying jobs in the future.

The summit will start at 9 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 1, is open to the public and costs $20.

Kresich said the realities of climate change have been apparent across Montana this summer, and a recent report from the United Nations paints a grim picture of the future if the world doesn't take substantial action on climate change. However, Kresich said she's reminded of a quote from environmentalist Paul Hawken, who said, "Belief doesn't change action, but action can change belief."

"For instance, here in Livingston, the air has not been safe to breathe, day after day after day. That's really hard to bear," she said. "But what he's getting at is that, when we take action, we can create hope because we know action is possible."

Speakers and panelists at the summit will nclude Emily Rhodes from the Just Transition Fund, Mark Haggerty at the Center for American Progress and a keynote address by John Farrell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

HELENA, Mont. -- Conservation groups in Montana are calling on the federal government to overhaul oil and gas leasing on public lands.

President Joe Biden paused leasing when he came into office, but a federal judge has overturned the moratorium.

On August 31st, the Bureau of Land Management proposed 14 parcels in Montana covering more than 62-hundred acres for a lease sale in February and is seeking public comment on the proposal.

Derf Johnson, staff attorney for the Montana Environmental Information Center, said the Biden administration recognized concerns with the leasing process when they issued the pause.

"America's public lands currently are leased for oil and gas through a system that is broken," Johnson contended. "It rips off taxpayers, it doesn't protect our environment or our climate, and there's a whole slew of administrative problems with the system."

In their letter to the state director of BLM for Montana and the Dakotas, the groups proposed seven reforms to the leasing process. They include limiting the quantity and scope of sales, requiring a royalty rate of at least 18.75% for all leases, and limiting participation by speculators.

The oil and gas industry group Western Energy Alliance initially challenged the pause, arguing Biden had overstepped his presidential authority.

Aubrey Bertram, staff attorney for Wild Montana, said there is an urgent need to curb carbon emissions on public lands. She noted if our public lands were a country, they would be the fifth-largest greenhouse-gas emitter in the world.

Bertram noted the Biden administration has ambitious climate goals, and fossil-fuel extraction on public lands will play an integral role.

"I think it's fair to say that the status quo is not going to get the administration to its goals when it comes to climate resiliency and economic recovery," Bertram asserted. "We know we need to do things differently, and this is a really important chance for the administration to put their money where their mouths are."

Bertram added 20 million acres of public land is already leased across the West. Last week, House Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee voted to include reforms to oil and gas leasing on public lands in the budget reconciliation package.