|
On 6 Apr 2004 02:03:43 -0700, (maff), Message ID:
<18510aff.0404060103.51d5473e@posting.google.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
The Mercury Scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/opinion/06KRUG.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In a classic example of the Bush administration's environmental
policy, the polluters wrote their own rules on mercury.
Paul Krugman
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4268558753d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0401090446.5184a1ae%40posting.google.com
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4708760.html
Paul Krugman: Mercury plan leaves people unprotected
Paul Krugman, New York Times
April 7, 2004KRUGMAN0407
If you want a single example that captures why so many people no longer
believe in the good intentions of the Bush administration, look at the
case of mercury pollution.
Mercury can damage the nervous system, especially in fetuses and infants
-- which is why the Food and Drug Administration warns pregnant women
and nursing mothers against consuming types of fish, like albacore tuna,
that often contain high mercury levels. About 8 percent of American
women have more mercury in their bloodstreams than the Environmental
Protection Agency considers safe.
During the 1990s, government regulation greatly reduced mercury
emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power
plants as the main problem. In 2000, the EPA determined that mercury is
a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires
that such substances be strictly controlled. EPA staff estimated that
enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in
power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.
A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this
determination and proposed a "cap and trade" system for mercury that it
claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates
suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.
For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while letting
polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to
reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which
causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly shows
that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.
Sulfur dioxide is light, and travels long distances: Power plants in the
Midwest can cause acid rain in Maine. So a cap on total national
emissions makes sense. Mercury is heavy: Much of it precipitates to the
ground near the source. As a result, coal-fired power plants in states
like Pennsylvania and Michigan create "hot spots" -- chemical Chernobyls
-- where the risks of mercury poisoning are severe. Under a
cap-and-trade system, these plants are likely to purchase pollution
rights rather than cut emissions. In other words, the administration
proposal would perpetuate mercury pollution where it does the most harm.
That probably means thousands of children born with preventable
neurological problems.
So how did the original plan get replaced with a plan so obviously wrong
on the science?
The answer is that the foxes have been put in charge of the henhouse.
The head of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, like most key
environmental appointees in the Bush administration, previously made his
living representing polluting industries (which, in case you haven't
guessed, are huge Republican donors). On mercury, the administration
didn't just take industry views into account, it literally let the
polluters write the regulations: Much of the language of the
administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.
EPA experts normally study regulations before they are issued, but they
were bypassed. According to the Los Angeles Times: "EPA staffers say
they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic
studies called for under a standing executive order. EPA veterans say
they cannot recall another instance where the agency's technical experts
were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal."
Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in
environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a devastating
article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the
administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the
polluters' wildest dreams.
And the corruption of the policy process -- in which political
appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical experts
who might present information their superiors don't want to hear are
muzzled -- has infected every area I know anything about, from tax cuts
to matters of war and peace.
(c) 2004 New York Times
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
