The EPA and Mercury Emissions

[elanor]

What is Mike Leavitt over at the EPA thinking?? This is the story that has fueled my ire recently (pun intended). Here's an in-a-nutshell summary from NPR's web site:

New EPA head Mike Leavitt faces an environmental uproar over a proposed pollution regulation that would allow power plants to buy and sell the right to emit mercury, a potent neurotoxin, as long as national emission levels fall every year.

Mercury gets into the environment from burning fossil fuels. It is released into the air, and it gets caught in soil and water. As I understand it, plants will be allowed a certain level of emissions per year. If a plant is good and comes in under their level, they can sell their unused "mercury credits" to a dirty plant.

This stinks! It means that dirty plants, by buying credits from clean plants, can still release higher levels of mercury. And this can all go on as long as the overall total emissions goes down each year. But it doesn't do anything to put an end to mercury hot spots. The states that top the list of hot spots are Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Tennessee.

And right on the heels of this announcement, the FDA is considering adding tuna to the list of fish with a mercury advisory. Mercury can cause birth defects, so the advisory affects women of child-bearing age. It also affects young children.

As a member of my local Sierra Club chapter, I will be talking to our group to find out what we can do make our voices heard about this one.

Here are some links:

EPA aims to change pollution rules

Tuna may join mercury advisory

 

[Blemonds]

What is Mike Leavitt over at the EPA thinking?? This is the story that has fueled my ire recently (pun intended). Here's an in-a-nutshell summary from NPR's web site:

New EPA head Mike Leavitt faces an environmental uproar over a proposed pollution regulation that would allow power plants to buy and sell the right to emit mercury, a potent neurotoxin, as long as national emission levels fall every year.

Mercury gets into the environment from burning fossil fuels. It is released into the air, and it gets caught in soil and water. As I understand it, plants will be allowed a certain level of emissions per year. If a plant is good and comes in under their level, they can sell their unused "mercury credits" to a dirty plant.

This stinks! It means that dirty plants, by buying credits from clean plants, can still release higher levels of mercury. And this can all go on as long as the overall total emissions goes down each year. But it doesn't do anything to put an end to mercury hot spots. The states that top the list of hot spots are Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Tennessee.

And right on the heels of this announcement, the FDA is considering adding tuna to the list of fish with a mercury advisory. Mercury can cause birth defects, so the advisory affects women of child-bearing age. It also affects young children.

As a member of my local Sierra Club chapter, I will be talking to our group to find out what we can do make our voices heard about this one.

Here are some links:

EPA aims to change pollution rules

Tuna may join mercury advisory

I have no problem with it. As long as the overall total emissions goes down each year

 

[burrow_owl]

the EPA has proposed two plans: one is the credits program, to which you're referring, and the other is a standard regulatory scheme. I think the EPA is currently soliciting advice on which would be better. As Blemmy points out, it's not a foregone conclusion that the credits program would be worse (for example, it may be more effective at cutting out what are called 'agency costs,' which are the costs associated with policing the regulations - since the EPA doesn't have infinite resources, there may be a significant risk of polluters going unpunished. If this is the case, something like a credit system may be more effective at reducing pollution. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case - just that one could see ways in which a credit system might be the better method, so let's not jump the gun until some evidence of the systems' respective efficacies is shown).

 

[MichaelFJF]

Companies do this sort of thing all the time. Total emissions are declining. Besides, I LIKE mercury in my tuna. M

 

[burrow_owl]

Besides, I LIKE mercury in my tuna.

At least it means more tuna for males ages 16-50. less for pregnant women and children = more for me.

 

[elanor]

Companies may indeed do this sort of thing all the time, MichaelFJF. That doesn't make it right.

And yes, I know the proposal is for overall emissions to decrease. That's a good thing. But if they choose this sort of regulation, even though overall levels go down, the worst offenders can still offend--AND get worse! Why is this better than requiring each plant to reduce emisssions? The dirty plants can either use their money to buy up credits, or they can use it to change the way they operate so they can reduce emissions. The technology to do that already exists. Make them use it. This mercury credit policy shouldn't even be under consideration.

 

[elanor]

At least it means more tuna for males ages 16-50. less for pregnant women and children = more for me.
[/size][/color][/font]

Ah, yes! Less for you=more for me. The conservative philosophy in a nutshell.

 

[antigoat]

I may be wrong, but it seems like having credits almost guarantees that mercury levels will never go down any more than the very minimum required.

Profit trumps all. Is the US really like 80% Christian?

 

[Blemonds]

And yes, I know the proposal is for overall emissions to decrease.

So why not just be happy about it.

 

[Blemonds]

What is Mike Leavitt over at the EPA thinking?? This is the story that has fueled my ire recently (pun intended). Here's an in-a-nutshell summary from NPR's web site:

New EPA head Mike Leavitt faces an environmental uproar over a proposed pollution regulation that would allow power plants to buy and sell the right to emit mercury, a potent neurotoxin, as long as national emission levels fall every year.

Mercury gets into the environment from burning fossil fuels. It is released into the air, and it gets caught in soil and water. As I understand it, plants will be allowed a certain level of emissions per year. If a plant is good and comes in under their level, they can sell their unused "mercury credits" to a dirty plant.

This stinks! It means that dirty plants, by buying credits from clean plants, can still release higher levels of mercury. And this can all go on as long as the overall total emissions goes down each year. But it doesn't do anything to put an end to mercury hot spots. The states that top the list of hot spots are Michigan, Maryland, Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas and Tennessee.

And right on the heels of this announcement, the FDA is considering adding tuna to the list of fish with a mercury advisory. Mercury can cause birth defects, so the advisory affects women of child-bearing age. It also affects young children.

As a member of my local Sierra Club chapter, I will be talking to our group to find out what we can do make our voices heard about this one.

Here are some links:

EPA aims to change pollution rules

Tuna may join mercury advisory

Here's a thought. If you would determine for yourself to get by with a lot less power, and enlist your friends at theSierra Club to do the same, then the power plants would have to cut their production, and the dirty plants would eventually be shut down. That's called capitalism and if you try it, you'll see that it works.

As for me, I'm gonna make a tuna sandwich

 

[Goldstein]

Here's a thought. If you would determine for yourself to get by with a lot less power, and enlist your friends at theSierra Club to do the same, then the power plants would have to cut their production, and the dirty plants would eventually be shut down. That's called capitalism and if you try it, you'll see that it works.

We will also see that the "socialist" solution, i.e. government enforcement, works a lot better.

 

[Blemonds]

We will also see that the "socialist" solution, i.e. government enforcement, works a lot better.

You government forcing citizens to use a lot less power?

 

[elanor]

Hold up, people! What is it you're really arguing for here?

This is what we do know--and I haven't found that anyone disagrees on this--mercury is a neurotoxin. When released into the atmosphere it ends up in soil and water. From there, it ends up in the food we eat. It can cause birth defects, and is hazardous to pregnant women and small children. Why, then, would you argue that it is acceptable to even consider allowing a plant--any plant--to continue or even increase a high rate of emissions?

Blemonds, looking at that avatar of yours and I would think that you would be leading the charge against anything that is a proven danger to babies. Where are all the people who oppose harming a child in the womb? It's not okay to abort, but it is okay to expose a fetus to mercury poisoning? Why aren't the same people rallying against both issues?

Somebody get in here and explain this to me, please, because I really can't understand why you wouldn't favor doing whatever it takes to get dirty plants to reduce this hazard. This just defies comprehension.

 

[Blemonds]

Hold up, people! What is it you're really arguing for here?

This is what we do know--and I haven't found that anyone disagrees on this--mercury is a neurotoxin. When released into the atmosphere it ends up in soil and water. From there, it ends up in the food we eat. It can cause birth defects, and is hazardous to pregnant women and small children. Why, then, would you argue that it is acceptable to even consider allowing a plant--any plant--to continue or even increase a high rate of emissions?

Blemonds, looking at that avatar of yours and I would think that you would be leading the charge against anything that is a proven danger to babies. Where are all the people who oppose harming a child in the womb? It's not okay to abort, but it is okay to expose a fetus to mercury poisoning? Why aren't the same people rallying against both issues?

Somebody get in here and explain this to me, please, because I really can't understand why you wouldn't favor doing whatever it takes to get dirty plants to reduce this hazard. This just defies comprehension.

I offered a solution. What was it you didn't like about it.

 

[elanor]

Sorry for the delay, Blemonds. There've been a few other events to distract from this topic.

What was it I didn't like about your solution? Well, first let me say that I actually DO agree that if we adopted a more simple lifestyle, one not so dependent on fossil fuels, we'd all be better off. There'd be less need for processes that produce hazards like we've been discussing. There'd be less effect on the environment as a whole, and it would go a long way toward decreasing our country's involvement in a very volatile region of the world. So even though I detected the sarcasm in your remark about me and my Sierra Club friends, I can still agree with this part of your response.

Here's the problem, though. A lot more people than me and my Sierra Club friends would have to adopt a simplified lifestyle to make any sort of substantial difference. And the supports aren't really in place to make that happen. Example: Where I live, public transportation is so limited as to be useless for most of us. We lobby for change, but it's so expensive as to be almost prohibitive, and people are very attached to the independence an automobile gives them. And by the way, you might be very surprised at how simply I and some of my friends already live.

Now about allowing capitalism to solve the problem--here I do disagree. I think there are circumstances where we can allow the system to do the work of weeding out bad companies, but this isn't one of them. This is not just an economic issue. This is an issue of public health and safety, and in such cases I really do think the government has an obligation to step in make sure that companies are operating in such a way that citizens are not harmed.

Now, what about my question? Since mercury is such a danger to unborn and young children, why shouldn't this issue of mercury emissions create an outrage among all those people who take up the cause of the unborn?

 

[antigoat]

One of the problems with domestic reduction in power and waste is that a vast majority of the power used, and waste produced comes not from the domestic sector but from the commercial one. We could all cut our power usage by 15% at home and it would hardly make a dent in the overall usage.
The only way to significantly decrease power usage would be for for the commercial sector to do so. And as long as they can use more power and increase profits, that is never going to happen without intervention.

 

[Dale]

*
Elanor, thank you for bringing up this subject.
*
*
This deals with the problem of air pollution in general, rather than mercury. How much difference would enforcing the old rule, that the Bush Administration is getting rid of, make? The Energy Information Administration made this calculation in a 2001 report to the White House: The emission of sulfur dioxide from power plants would have been reduced from 11 million tons a year to two million tons a year. This would prevent 19,000 premature deaths each year. It would also prevent 400,000 asthma attacks and 12,000 cases of bronchitis.


*
I got this information from the Audubon magazine, December 2003.
*

 

[Blemonds]

Now, what about my question? Since mercury is such a danger to unborn and young children, why shouldn't this issue of mercury emissions create an outrage among all those people who take up the cause of the unborn?

It's under control. Under the BushAdministration's plan, mercury emissions will be reduced 70% That's great news