Mercury Poisoning and Cost Shifting

Is Bush wrong to delay the reduction in Mercury emissions in US powerplants? Doesn't this shift the burden from the power plants to those harmed by the emissions?

If it was true that reducing the emissions from US power lants would aid people, it would be a cost shift to have that cost stay with the recipient rather than the polluter. I don't think that is true.

Along with Cost shifting, we have to be cognizant of Cost-benefit. If the US eliminates entirely its Mercury emissions, it will not be a significant reduction in world wide mercury emissions, and it is the accumulation of mercury in predatory ocean fish that are the biggest health concern:

Almost all exposure to mercury comes from eating fish. Americans get their fish from a variety of sources from all over the world. Understanding fish consumption patterns is crucial to a more complete picture of the health benefits of reducing emissions from U.S. power plants. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/ inquiry.htm

Approximately 75 tons of mercury are found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually. This 25-ton reduction is achieved in the power plant boilers and through existing pollution controls such as fabric filters (for particulate matter), scrubbers (for SO 2) and SCRs (for NOx). As more scrubbers and SCRs are installed to comply with the Clean Air Interstate Rule and other regulations, mercury emissions are expected to decrease. This multipollutant approach is central to the Agency's plan to reduce mercury from power plants.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/ index.htm

Recent estimates, which are highly uncertain, of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources, natural and anthropogenic, are about 4,400 to 7,500 metric tons emitted per year. The world map and the pie chart below provide information about the worldwide distribution of mercury emissions. ...

The U.S. in the Global ContextU.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly three percent of the global total, and emissions from the U.S. power sector are estimated to account for about one percent of total global emissions. (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Chemicals, Global Mercury Assessment, Geneva, 2002.).EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Current estimates are that about half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources. However there are regional differences in these numbers. For example, U.S. sources represent a greater fraction of the total deposition in the Northeast because of the direction of the prevailing winds.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/contr...ions/

Emissions of mercury to the air from anthropogenic (human-caused emissions) sources have fallen by more than 45% since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. These amendments provided new authority to EPA to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants to the air. http://www.epa.gov/mercury/contr...s/

So we have already had a 45% reduction, which presumably accounts for the cheap reduction, and the additional reduction that is called for will be more expensive with no real benefit, since the vast majority of the pollution effecting fish comes from other countries. I do not see this as being a good example of Bush administration cost-shifting. I see it more like a rational delay due to the cost providing no discernible benefit.

And since the Clinton EPA did not create the rule Bush is changing until December 2000 as it was packing its bags, I do not think that it was ever intended to be good policy. If it was a good policy, Clinton had 8 years to implement it.

And finally, doesn't this get us back to the issue of exporting our environmental harm? By creating additional costs for power here, we increase the benefit of importing merchandise that was made without those regulations? We can see that effect in many industries, from oil exploration to chemical production to ship decomissioning.

Normally, the environmental hazard we export has minimal impact on the US, because it stays more or less where it was made. In the case of Mercury, however, we do feel the impact of it because it poisons the fish we eat. The cheap goods we buy from China were produced from power made in coal fired plants with no controls at all. I think India and China each produce 250 tons of mercury annually, much more than the US for much less power.

I think there has to be a rational balance in our regulation to ensure that we protect our people and our environment, but not at the expense of other people and places. Mercury is a good place to start, because exporting the production does not really protect our people at all.

My proposal would be that we have a comprehensive strategy that allows regulations to have impact and not harm either our economy or pollute foreign countries. It seems to me that we need to incorporate "buy American" and "buy Union" in our rhetoric to prevent exporting the environmental damage, and reduce exporting jobs. We discussed before about Walmart and unions, but few greens actually seem to buy union. Supporting unions begins with buying the products and services they sell. Supporting environmental regulations also begins with purchasing products manufactured under those regulations.

And I have also been thinking that some sort of trademark (like "Dolphin Safe") for imported goods that are manufactured under environmental and labor rules as stringent as those in the US would be a great way to incorporate globalization with green and labor friendly ideals. I actually think it would be a good business to start...