This is Your Brain on Mercury...

The administration issued new rules for mercury emissions from power plants. Here are some comments, first from the Los Angeles Times:

Mercury that falls into lakes, rivers and oceans accumulates in fish tissue, and fish consumption has been linked to neurological and developmental damage. An EPA analysis has found that about 600,000 babies born in the U.S. each year may be exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb, primarily from mothers who have eaten fish.

The Times quotes John Walke, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney who previously worked for the EPA:

This is, without a doubt, the most dangerous, dishonest and illegal air pollution rule I have ever seen come out of the agency.

The Boston Globe continues the quotes from Walke:

I'm still taken aback about how weak and unlawful the rule is...

For a dangerous neurotoxin that poisons children and unborn children, the agency is allowing dirty power plants to pollute at excessive levels for the next two decades.

Here's a map of current mercury pollution in the U.S.:

This map and the new rules motivated me to wonder how to tell if someone is suffering from mercury poisoning. Here are the symptoms of prenatal exposure to methyl mercury at the lower levels likely to be encountered today:

Delayed learning
Shortened attention span
Memory deficits
Delayed language acquisition
Poorer motor control or coordination

Of course, Michael Leavitt, EPA administratorand a former Utah governor, defends the policy on behalf of the administration:

...Leavitt... said the new rule he plans to sign will lead to deep cuts in mercury pollution and the first limits on how much of the naturally occurring element comes out of coal-fired power plants. A main goal is preventing neurological problems in children who eat mercury-contaminated fish.

"We view mercury as a toxic," he said. "We believe it needs to be regulated. . . It's a very serious problem." He added that mercury emissions are not increasing, as some environmentalists contend, and in fact have been cut in half in recent history.

Here's a statement from the White House web site on what a wonderful steward of the environment this administration is:

The Bush Administration's Environmental Philosophy

• The focus is on results - making our air, water, and land cleaner.
• We need to employ the best science and data to inform our decision-making [emphasis added] .
• Our policies should encourage innovation and the development of new, cleaner technologies.
• We should continue to build on America's ethic of stewardship and personal responsibility through education and volunteer opportunities, and in our daily lives.
• Opportunities for environmental improvements are not limited to Federal Government actions - States, tribes, local communities, and individuals must be included.

The best science and data? This statement from The Union of Concerned Scientists entitled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy says it well. The statement, which is signed by 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers says, in part:

Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

My mercury is definitely rising.

[pgl commented: Actually - I'm a believer in emissions trading IF done right. But your graph shows what is wrong with the national version of this. Done right, it equates marginal benefit across regions and equates marginal cost across firms. But that would have standards set regionally given the high density in some regions in the East and the low density. The Bush version has a national price so we get equal marginal cost across firms but very different marginal benefits across the region. Folks in Utah will get rich selling their rights to polluters in Pennsylvania. And they enjoy a clean enviroment as folks in Penn. will not.]

Comments from old site