President Bush thinks Clinton got it wrong about mercury emissions; they should be regulated, sure, but at the level of substances that cause things like smog and maybe acid rain, not the really toxic stuff like, oh, I don’t know… mercury? Mercury is a known neurotoxin; it’s the reason we’re warned not to eat too much of the fish we catch here on the Far Edge.
According to Shrub logic, mercury should be removed from the list of the most closely regulated pollutants—stuff like asbestos, chromium, and lead, substances that are known to be toxic to humans—because it “would be a more efficient and faster way to reduce mercury in the environment.” Or at least that’s what The New York Times reported today.
Coal-burning electricity generating plants are responsible for about 40 percent of all mercury emissions (estimated at 48 tons annually) and the power plants’ mercury emissions are not currently regulated by the federal government at all. Under the proposal, the plants would be able to buy and sell mercury emission rights just like the existing sulfur dioxide “market.” According to a report in today’s Washington Post, “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that 8 percent of women of childbearing age had mercury in their blood exceeding levels deemed safe by the EPA.”
The proposal would limit mercury emissions to 34 tons annually—about 30 percent lower than current emission levels—but Bush’s own “Clear Skies” initiative called for a 26-ton emission limit.
Scott Segal, a spokesperson for the electricity generation industry, told the Times, “If you were to regulate mercury in an overly inflexible way, the result would be substantial fuel switching from coal to natural gas.” Well, gosh, Scott, I don’t know quite how to put this in words you can understand: A short-term switch from burning coal to natural gas to create electricity is exactly what we would like to happen until more renewable clean energy generators (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) can be developed.