2005-03-24
Squashed Science
The environmental scientists who labor in the Bush administration must truly be dedicated to public service. Otherwise, why would they continue to work for bosses who deep-six their studies, blacklist those who complain and often intervene on behalf of the coal industry and other polluters? The latest example of squashed science was revealed Tuesday by the Washington Post. The Post story focused on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new rules on airborne mercury, a toxic pollutant that comes largely from coal-burning power plants.
For five years, health advocates have pressured the EPA to set across-the-board pollution controls that, in the view of some scientists, would reduce mercury emissions 90 percent nationwide within three years. Instead, the administration chose last week to rescind a Clinton-era directive that would have labeled mercury a toxic pollutant under the Clean Air Act of 1990. Instead of regulating mercury under that law (signed by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush), the administration has proposed a "cap-and-trade" program. The new rule sets a national cap on mercury emissions and allows companies to either reduce emissions or buy credits from industries that do so.
In unveiling the new rule, EPA officials said they rejected tougher controls because the costs to industry would have exceeded the estimated health benefits. According to the Post, a Harvard University study actually concluded the opposite. The study, commissioned by the EPA and co-authored by an agency scientist, concluded the health benefits of across-the-board pollution cuts could be 100 times higher than the costs of the EPA proposal. Yet the EPA stripped the Harvard study from its public documents in unveiling the rule. Congress needs to find out why.
To be sure, mercury is a challenging pollutant. Released into the air from power plants and incinerators, it falls to water and transforms into methyl mercury. There it builds up in fish. People who eat such fish expose themselves to a potent neurotoxin, one that can cause brain damage in developing fetuses and young children.
In California, much of our mercury-tainted fish is a legacy of the Gold Rush, when miners used mercury to process ore. The Bush proposal may have little direct impact on California, but it could end up fouling waterways across the West.
According to energy analysts, the coal industry is planning new plants in Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and New Mexico. Many of these plants are likely to buy credits from plants in the Midwest that must install new pollution controls for other regulatory reasons. As a result, emissions of mercury could actually decrease nationwide - by an estimated 21 percent in five years - while local emissions of mercury could increase in several Western states.
Is pollution trading a bad idea? Not in all cases. Trading programs have effectively reduced pollutants that are carried long distances - such as sulfur dioxide, a cause of acid rain. But mercury is a different matter. Mercury is a neurotoxin that builds up in the food chain, and unlike sulfur dioxide, it quickly falls out into streams and lakes after being released from industry smokestacks.
Such concerns were raised by the EPA's own child health advisory group, but the agency ignored that panel. The EPA's inspector general and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office have also criticized the agency's mercury regulations, the apparent brainchild of a coal industry law firm.
Last year it was revealed that sections of the EPA's regulations were lifted verbatim from memos prepared by Latham & Watkins, a Washington law firm. Along with working for coal companies, Latham & Watkins used to employ Jeff Holmstead, the EPA's top air pollution official.
For five years, this pattern of silencing federal scientists and letting industry regulate itself has been a hallmark of the White House. The Bush administration has intervened to allow more air pollution near national parks and more toxic selenium to drip from coal mines. Agency scientists need to hang in there and fight the good fight. They can only look forward to a day when the White House is occupied by people who actually care about public health and the environment.
[Editor Fiatlux comment: Apparently there is a difference in some people’s minds between “right-to-life” and “right-to-a-healthy life.” It is time for the “right-to-lifers” on the Christian Right to make more explicit their feelings on the matter. We know that pollutants such as lead and mercury can cause serious brain damage to fetuses and infants. We also know that the Bush administration has constantly sought to weaken laws dealing with the reduction of lead and mercury pollution in deference to the business interests involved in their production. And we know as well that “right-to-life” groups have consistently support Bush.
Are we to conclude that the health condition of the unborn or of the infant is not important; that it’s just a matter of whether or not they live, rather than how functional they are? I personally find it extremely hypocritical for one to talk about the sacredness of the unborn and yet vote for a man who is dedicated to submitting the unborn to brain damaging toxic chemicals.]
