Tech | December 28, 2011 | 3 comments

New EPA mercury rules are a bonafide big deal

Image
JanforGore
Wednesday, at long last, the EPA unveiled its new rule covering mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

Anyone who pays attention to green news will have spent the last two years hearing a torrent of stories about EPA rules and the political fights over them. It can get tedious. After a certain point even my eyes glaze over, and I’m paid to follow this stuff.

But this one is a Big Deal. It’s worth lifting our heads out of the news cycle and taking a moment to appreciate that history is being made. Finally controlling mercury and toxics will be an advance on par with getting lead out of gasoline. It will save save tens of thousands of lives every year and prevent birth defects, learning disabilities, and respiratory diseases. It will make America a more decent, just, and humane place to live.

A couple of background facts to contextualize what the new rule means:

First, remember that the original Clean Air Act “grandfathered” in dozens of existing coal plants back in 1977, on the assumption that they were nearing the end of their lives and would be shut soon anyway. Well, funny story … they never shut down! There are still dozens of coal plants in the U.S. that don’t meet the pollution standards in the original 1970 Clean Air Act, much less the 1990 amendments. These old, filthy jalopies from the early 20th century, mostly along the eastern seaboard and scattered around the Midwest, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of the air pollution generated by the electricity sector in America, including most of the mercury. They have been environmentalists’ bête noire for over 30 years now.

Second, mercury rules get directly at these plants in a way no other rules have. There’s no trading system for mercury like there is for SO2 (the Bush administration tried to set one up, but the court struck it down). There are no short-cuts either. Every plant that’s out of compliance has to install the “maximum available control technology.” There is some flexibility — more than industry admits — but there’s no getting around the fact that this is going to be an expensive rule. It’s going to kick off a huge wave of coal-plant retirements and investments in pollution-control technology. That is, despite what conservatives say, a good thing, since the public-health benefits will be far greater than the costs. Every country on earth is modernizing its electric fleet. Even China’s ahead of us. These crappy old plants are an embarrassment and good riddance to them.

Third, this has been a long time coming. (Nicholas Bianco has some good history here.) An assessment of mercury was part of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. EPA stalled and stalled, got sued, and finally did the assessment. Sure enough, as had been known for years, they found mercury is harmful to public health. Then more stalling and more stalling until the Bush administration’s malformed 2004 proposal, which instantly got caught up in (and struck down by) the courts. So when the mercury rule finally goes into effect in 2014, 24 years will have passed since Congress said mercury needs regulating. It’s been a fight for enviros every step of the way.

So anyway, this is an historic day and a real step forward for the forces of civilization. It’s the beginning of the end of one of the last of the old-school, 20th-century air pollution problems. (Polluters and their rented conservatives will try to kick up dust about this, but check out this letter to Congress [PDF] from a group of health scientists, which says “exposure to mercury in any form places a heavy burden on the biochemical machinery within cells of all living organisms.”) Long after everyone has forgotten who “won the morning” in the fight over these rules, or what effect they had on Obama’s electoral chances, the rule’s legacy will live on in a healthier, happier American people.
by David Roberts, cross-posted from Grist


More at the link
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Tech,   Green,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Environment Health Cancer EPA 6 more
  3.     
    |

3 comments // New EPA mercury rules are a bonafide big deal

  • Wyley_Wombat
    • +1
      Wyley_Wombat  
    • Not far from where I live are several very old coal fired plants. On one of them you can see long trails of black starting at the top of the stacks and running down. I can well imagine the melange of toxins that have condensed out of the smoke. These have been there for over forty years. It is indeed time to fix these cancerous growths.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Image
    • http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/12/22/clean-air-the-epa-finally-tackles-me...

      "At the start of the fall, greens were not happy with President Obama. There was lingering disappointment about the failure of climate legislation a year before—a failure that many environmentalists blamed on insufficient action from the White House. That was bad enough, but at the beginning of September Obama shocked many of his environmental allies by pulling back proposed tough standards on smog pollution, undercutting his own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And there was more anger—including sustained protests outside the White House—over the possible approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring Canadian oil sands to the U.S. Influential environmentalists were talking seriously about withholding full support for Obama in 2012, despite the fact that a Republican President would almost certainly be disastrous for environmental protection. It didn’t matter—greens were that mad.

      Fast forward a few months, however, and things have changed. Obama decided last month to put off any decisions on the Keystone XL pipeline until 2013, ostensibly to allow more time for study. He threatened to veto any Congressional bill that would force his hand on the pipeline. And then on December 21, the White House announced the first-ever regulations on mercury pollution from power plants, a controversial set of rules—fiercely opposed by Republicans and much of the utility industry—that had been in the works for more than two decades. The regulations are a win for environmentalists and for public health, but the announcement also helps cement Obama’s relationship to his green base heading into an election year.

      MORE: A Win for Clean Air in the Southeast

      Here’s what EPA head Lisa Jackson said at the unveiling of the regulations, held at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington:

      I am glad to be here to mark the finalization of a clean air rule that has been 20 years in the making, and is now ready to start improving our health, protecting our children, and cleaning up our air. Under the Clean Air Act these standards will require American power plants to put in place proven and widely available pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases. In and of itself, this is a great victory for public health, especially for the health of our children.
      You can find the full rules here—much of what I wrote about the pending mercury regulations in a blog post last Friday is still relevant:

      Mercury is a neurotoxin—one that’s especially dangerous to children—and trace amounts of it can be found in some forms of coal, especially from the West. When that coal is burned, the mercury is released into the air, where it can attack us directly, or wind its way up the food chain, often through fish. (Concerns about mercury levels is one reason that pregnant women are often advised to avoid sushi and other seafood.) The EPA has been looking at regulating mercury since the Clean Air Amendments of 1990 were passed—with remarkably bipartisan support—but the agency dragged its feet, issuing its first study in 1998 and the first attempt at regulations under former President George W. Bush in 2005. But those rules were considered so lax that a federal court threw them out and ordered the agency to come up with something more stringent. Now—seven years later—the EPA is on the brink of doing just that.

      The new rules will cut mercury, as well as several other air toxins—including arsenic—chiefly from coal-fired power plants. The public health benefits are impressive: the agency said the rules will prevent some 11,000 premature deaths a year and 130,000 childhood asthma symptoms. The costs may sound high—the EPA estimates the price of complying with the regulations will run to $11 billion a year—but the rules should reduce health costs by preventing asthma, hospital visits and premature deaths at a much higher return, as Eileen Claussen of the NGO C2ES said:

      These investments will pay important dividends by reducing health costs by $37-90 billion in 2016 alone. EPA has taken steps to allow time to install new controls and to ensure energy reliability, but implementation will have to be carefully monitored to ensure that any bottlenecks are addressed in a timely manner."

      Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/12/22/clean-air-the-epa-finally-tackles-me...
      ~~~~~~~~
      Of course the usual subjects who don't care about life will have their usual unsubstantiated complaints. I am happy about this, though it is not at this time affecting my vote. It is part of their job to do this. However, this is at least a step forward. We need to see more steps. After two decades, it's about damn time.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • This is what the EPA should stand for: Environmental PROTECTION. Thank you for finally doing this! Cleaner air, water, and healthier citizens is what we should be advocating. Now do it regarding CO2 and let's see tarsands defeated and we will go a long way to saving many more lives.

    • 5 months ago
more from Tech:

top videos