PolluterWatch Blog

Coal Lobby Loves Mercury

Crossposted from Greenpeace USA.

 

In the midst of attacks from Congress on virtually all things environmental, EPA has announced a rule to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution. The two-decade history of this long-developing rule is a frustrating anecdote of the success of the anti-public health coal lobby.

 

Coal industry has contributed heavily to the campaign coffers of our lawmakers. Senator Inhofe (R-OK), America's most iconic politician against environmental logic, introduced the speciously entitled CARE Act. When it comes to public health, the bill is better called the 'Don't Give a Damn Act.' CARE would strip EPA's ability to protect people against airborne toxics. American Electric Power is clearly supportive of Inhofe's stalling bill. Other companies willing to pay evil lobbyists, but not to pay to invest in pro-public pollution technology, include Southern Energy and Duke Energy.

 

To their disappointment, this rule requires polluters reduce emissions of heavy metals, toxic gases, and other dangerous pollutants. Let's be clear, these companies have a choice.

 

'Mad hatter's disease,' named after a symptom of mercury exposure, wreaks havoc on the central nervous system and eventually the entire body. Also called Minimata disease, named after the river and community who suffered from wanton mercury pollution by industry in Japan, chronic mercury poisoning has been studied for several decades now.

 

Mercury contributes to thousands of deaths annually and may adversely affect the development of over 400,000 babies per year. Mercury exposure is serious problem for the lungs, brain, heart, stomach, kidneys, and the immune system. About 90% of human exposure is through the diet. Because of 'bioaccumulation' (mercury collects over time in organisms' bodies, including human bodies) and 'biomagnification' (concentration increases as animals eat other animals) we are most exposed through eating animal products. Newborn babies are most vulnerable, since they act as a mercury filter in the womb, and are exposed again through their mother's milk. Umbilical cord blood is a filter for a number of hazardous pollutants that include mercury. The only safe level of mercury exposure is zero.

 

Polluters have been spreading mercury around the country. Taller smokestacks never help. Much airborne mercury often falls back to the ground and waterways within only 100 or so miles, but since it doesn't breakdown it is re-emitted into the air, floats down streams, or is carried around by animals who ingest it. In 2008 about half the area of all rivers and lakes were under water contamination advisories, 80% of which was due to mercury pollution.

 

Most coal-fired power plant owners have not yet opted to install easily available technology that could reduce up to 90% of their mercury emissions. The majority of mercury poisoning is linked to burning coal. Some of this is transboundary pollution from burning coal in other countries. Fortunately, the US administration is constructively engaged in international discussions to reduce transboundary airborne mercury pollution. A positive outcome at the next international meetings surely depends on a strong rule. This rule is supposed to be finalized by November, whereas the next round of international mercury talks is the first week of the same month.

 

This new EPA rule would reduce our exposure to many of the most toxic substances humans have ever encountered (and created). Everyone knows arsenic is poisonous. Notwithstanding Frank Capra's masterpiece adaptation of Arsenic and Old Lace, we cannot blame widespread arsenic contamination on Cary Grant's well-meaning aunts. The main culprit is coal, always dirty and filthy.

Fairness

I'm not here to comment specifically on the bills in question, as I have not read them, but more to draw attention to a general problem I see with this whole discussion. I feel like both the environmentalists and those opposing the EPA are talking past each other, because they are failing to distinguish between two different issues: 1) when and where is it important to incur some economic losses in order to protect the environment, 2) when losses should be incurred, what is the smartest legal mechanism by which to impose them. I think most people agree that it is important to have some legal framework in which polluters are liable for the damages they cause, either by injunction or by some liability rule. However, the manner in which the EPA is going about trying to protect the environment is extremely bone-headed and heavy handed in nature. Passing sweeping regulations on the basis of current scientific recommendations is a static and crude approach to this problem, and is almost certain to reach an inefficient result. A much smarter approach is to devise some rule by which industries are allowed to pollute, but must pay proportionally to the damages they cause. Over time this will lead to extremely wasteful techniques of energy production being abandoned in favor of ones less costly to the firms. I only bring this up because I'm an environmentalist AND I want the EPA's authority curbed drastically, and I'm tired of hearing the noise about this.

coalportal

The use of renewables for generating power is to be congratulated. The latest coal market news and coal prices is that emerging countries are predicting to use large amounts of thermal coal for power generation and coal mining for steel production.
Cherry of www.coalportal.com

Connect

Keep In Touch

FacebookTwitterYouTubePolluterWatch RSS


Sign up for
POLLUTERWATCH News