It is one of the most important public health measures in a generation, one that will save tens of thousands of American lives. It will protect the IQ of countless American kids, and help clear the air for the millions of Americans with asthma. It may be the biggest health story you’ve never heard of.

I’m referring to the ruling the Obama administration unveiled Dec. 21 to control toxic mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants. These rules have been 21 years in the making, and now, at long last, they will bring Americans some relief from a pervasive toxin.

The United States has always shown good sense when taking on hazardous substances in our environment. We banned DDT in the 1970s after learning that this pesticide was killing birds of prey. We banned lead in gasoline and paint after scientific research proved it was harming our children. We joined the world in banning CFC refrigerants after scientists demonstrated they were depleting the Earth’s ozone layer. And we took strong action to reduce sulfur emissions from coal plants, which were poisoning our forests and lakes with acid rain.

Now we have taken aim at another Public Enemy: mercury. The president deserves enormous credit for sticking with his plan despite furious opposition from some in the power industry and their allies on Capitol Hill.

Why is this such a big deal? For many Americans, it may come as a surprise that mercury contamination is even a problem. Moms will know that doctors warn against eating too much canned tuna, but may not be sure how the mercury gets in the fish. But make no mistake: this is a public health emergency of the first order, and it starts with coal-fired power plants.

Every year, U.S. power plants release almost 50 tons of mercury into the environment. When coal is burned, some of the mercury in it deposits locally and some can travel hundreds of miles to contaminate rivers, lakes, animals, plants and ultimately our bodies.

Mercury is highly toxic.

Mercury exposure, especially in infants and children and developing fetuses, can lead to serious neurological problems, including impacts on thinking, memory, language and fine motor skills. Scientists at New York’s Mount Sinai Center for Children’s Health and the Environment have estimated that mercury exposure causes reductions in intelligence for between 316,500 and 637,200 American children each year, and also cause disruptions in behavior. Most of these effects will last a lifetime.

Many of the other toxic pollutants controlled by these rules — such as chromium, arsenic and dioxin — are known or probable carcinogens and can attack the brain, lungs, liver and kidneys.

Industry lobbyists have always complained about measures to protect the environment and public health. The Clean Air Act would lead to the “collapse of entire industries,” said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971. Phasing out CFCs would kill the refrigeration business. Removing lead from gasoline would mean huge price hikes.

Despite these wild predictions, the sky never fell, the American economy continued to prosper, and costs have been far outweighed by the public health benefits. The Clean Air Act, for example, has dramatically reduced asthma attacks, heart disease and other illnesses, saving trillions of dollars in health costs. In fact, for every dollar we spend under the Clean Air Act, we receive more than $30 in benefits. Now some lobbyists are complaining again, about the new mercury and air toxins rule. They claim the rule will lead to blackouts and service cutbacks and cause consumers’ bills to skyrocket, and they complain that utilities don’t have enough time to meet the new standards.

President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson were right to stand firm on this rule. The new regulations will impose some costs, but they will save far more in public health benefits. And several recent studies, including one by the respected North American Electric Reliability Corp., have all concluded that the new rules will not cause electricity reliability problems.

And here’s what the coal lobbyists aren’t telling you:

— Canned albacore tuna has become so contaminated by mercury that children under 6 should be restricted to, at most, one tuna meal a month. Children ages 6-12 should eat no more than two meals a month.

— States in the Midwest are advising women of childbearing age, and young children, to never eat fish caught in the Great Lakes, because of contamination by mercury (among other pollutants).

— All 48 of the continental United States had mercury fish consumption advisories as of March 2011.

— Wildlife that prey heavily on fish, including loons, mink, otters, beluga whales in the Arctic and even polar bears in Greenland, are heavily contaminated.

The new mercury and air toxins rule has been in the works since 1990 — long enough for the electric utilities to prepare. Many, to their credit, have done just that, and they support the new rules. But a few outliers didn’t make the necessary investments, betting they could endlessly delay the new rules. They are the ones making the most noise and spending the most money. In the last two quarters alone, for example, American Electric Power Co. spent millions lobbying Congress to weaken and delay clean-air rules.

Sorry, time’s up. Twenty-one years is long enough to wait for such a big, lifesaving win.

Fred Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund. He wrote this for McClatchy-Tribune News Service.

Join the Conversation

16 Comments

  1. Can you then explain to us why the government is forcing us to use mercury filled light bulbs in our homes that if and when they break will fill our homes with the very toxins you are referring to? Kind of funny, don’t you think.

    1. The amount of Mercury in a CFL bulb is miniscule when compared to the amount of Mercury released by coal power plants.  The energy saved by using CFL’s, therefore reducing Mercury released into the atmosphere, more than makes up for the amount of Mercury in a CFL bulb. 

      Not to mention that a CFL bulb should be disposed of correctly thus none of the Mercury ends up in the environment.

      1. We’ve been through this before.  Agreed, ALL fluorescent bulbs should be safely recycled.  Yes, breakage is a problem but cleanup procedures are given.

        In addition, elemental mercury vapor is not as much of a problem as is “organic mercury”, i.e., methylmercury which is formed in sludges and organisms.

  2. America’s coal-burning power plants emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year.
    U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year.
    Cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons per year.
    Chinese power plants eject 400 tons per year.
    Volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.
    All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass.

    Since US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.

    1. Hey whats wrong with you. Logic and facts have no bearing on liberals. They do not care about facts just what they think makes them look good.

      1. Politics has nothing to do with it.  Good research and data, lacking in Dianna’s posts, is what counts.

          1. Without looking up your references (I have seen synopses) you still don’t account for the differences in toxicity of the chemical forms of mercury and also assume that the totla emissions from all sources are to the global atmophere and don’t necessarily make it into local environments.  And isotopic analysis can identify the sources of the pollution.

    2. Mercury is a heavy element so when it is released into the atmosphere thru natural or man made processes it does not stay in the atmosphere long.  Coal fired power plants in the midwest have released Mercury into the air which ends up in Maine’s lakes, rivers and streams causing the fish from those sources to be dangerous for child bearing women and children to eat. 

      This was not a problem before coal power plants came online so the natural background emissions were not a problem.

      For more information about Mercury release teh following site is very informative.  Hard reading though

      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/5951/2010/acp-10-5951-2010.pdf

      1. It seems as though you didn’t read my entire post.  The last sentence again, if you please: “Since US power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.”

        For some magical, “scientific” reason, you protest that coal plants are the only sources of the Hg that are doing the contaminating of things.  The first part of my post listed the other 99.5% of Hg-contributing contaminators. 

        1. In response to both of your posts, only a small fraction of natural and even Chinese emmisions make it to Maine.  Isotopic analysis shows that the chief source of mercury pollution in Maine is from upwind US caol burning power plants.

  3. Good column except for one fact.  The form of the mercury in pwer plant emissions is elemental or inorganic.  When mercury deposits in streams, water, sludges, etc., bacteria convert it to methyl mercury, a far more toxic form.  However, it has been established that the chief source of mercury contamination in Maine is organic mercury formed from biological metabloism of mercury deposited from coal burning power plant emisiions.

  4. Can’t wait to see the electric bill when all the costs start adding up from the regulations. The people will go crazy.

  5. Good news about EPA’s mercury emissions regulation. Methyl mercury is harming the next generation–specifically, it’s lowering our kids’ IQs. Thanks to biomagnification in the marine food chain, fish consumption is actually the major route of human exposure to mercury. Here’s what Consumer Reports and researchers from Harvard have said about EPA’s mercury limit, and IQ: http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/the-effect-of-canned-tuna-on-future-wages/

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *