The Marcellus Shale Coalition says it's committed to protecting our communities and our environment. Here's how it can prove it.

Earlier this month, the coalition -- a business association representing many of the natural gas companies operating in the Marcellus Shale region -- released a document titled "Guiding Principles: Our Commitment to the Community." It consists of a list of promises, including promises to provide safe work sites, operate transparently, "implement state-of-the-art environmental protection" and be "responsible members of the communities in which we work."

Drilling opponents and supporters can all agree that if Marcellus Shale development proceeds, it should happen in a manner that protects workers, the environment and communities. Another belief we all share is a healthy skepticism for vaguely worded, feel-good public relations campaigns like the coalition's "Guiding Principles."

If the coalition's commitment is genuine, and I'd like very much to think that it is, the coalition can begin to demonstrate its sincerity by reducing air pollution emissions from Marcellus Shale operations.

We hear a lot about the threat this industry poses to our water. Though it receives less attention, the threat to our air quality is just as significant. Compressor engine exhaust, offgassing from storage tanks and raw natural gas emissions during well completions are just a few of the many sources of air pollution associated with natural-gas production.

The total air pollution created by this industry is astounding:

• In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, located in the Barnett Shale gas play, annual emissions of smog-forming pollutants from the oil and gas sector exceed emissions from motor vehicles.

• A 2008 analysis by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concluded that smog-forming emissions from Colorado's oil and gas operations exceed motor vehicle emissions for the entire state.

• Wyoming recently failed to meet federal health-based standards for air pollution for the first time in the state's history. According to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, emissions from the state's growing oil and gas sector are to blame.

Natural-gas operations in the Marcellus Shale are expanding at a breakneck pace. Texas, Wyoming and Colorado offer a preview of what's to come if we don't address this problem now.

Fortunately, effective control technologies exist to reduce air pollution from natural-gas operations. Better yet, because most of them reduce emissions by increasing the amount of methane and other hydrocarbons that are captured rather than entering the atmosphere, they are not just cheap, they actually can pay for themselves in short order -- often a year or less.

Utilizing these technologies makes so much sense from both an environmental and economic standpoint that the federal Environmental Protection Agency has partnered with industry to create the Natural Gas STAR program, which promotes voluntary adoption of these cost-effective pollution-control technologies.

While several of the Marcellus Shale Coalition members are members of the Gas STAR program, most aren't. If the Marcellus Shale Coalition wants to show its "Guiding Principles" are more than just words, it should require coalition members to participate in Gas STAR. Every year, program participants must document their emission reduction activities in a report to the EPA.

Consistent with the coalition's commitment to operate transparently, the coalition could make these annual reports available to the public. This would allow Pennsylvanians to draw their own conclusions about whether the industry is minimizing its impact on human health and the environment and generally living up to its "Guiding Principles."

These recommendations would dramatically reduce air pollution while increasing industry profits. If the Marcellus Shale Coalition members implement them, we'd give them due credit and recognition. If they don't, how could the public expect this industry to live up to the coalition's "Guiding Principles" when what's good for the industry's bottom line and what's good for the rest of us don't match up so conveniently?