Move is part of a series of rollbacks pursued on behalf of coal interests, decisions scientists say are detrimental to public health
Move is part of a series of rollbacks pursued on behalf of coal interests, decisions scientists say are detrimental to public health
The Trump administration will reconsider the reasoning for restrictions on toxic mercury pollution from coal plants that is linked to developmental delays in children, it was announced on Friday.
The power industry has largely met the restrictions, which were imposed under former president Barack Obama, with plants either installing required controls or shutting down.
The standards will remain in place, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will re-evaluate the government’s argument for why they are necessary and whether they will ultimately be tightened, the agency said on Friday.
The move by the Trump administration is part of a series of environmental rollbacks pursued on behalf of coal interests, decisions scientists say are detrimental to public health.
Charles Driscoll, a professor of environmental engineering at Syracuse University, said the administration was trying to “prolong the operation, the longevity of coal-fired power plants”.
While weakening mercury standards would not bring shuttered coal plants back to life, it could help some plants stay online a little longer, opponents of the change warned before the proposal was released. The rollback could also be part of a broader Trump administration legal strategy to to benefit industry by ignoring some health benefits of cutting pollution.
The Obama-era mercury rule counted the economic effects of curbing mercury and the societal savings from slashing other pollutants that would have come from coal plants that shut down.
The revisions to the mercury rule may be a test, designed to see whether the EPA can stop counting such benefits, called co-benefits, in future air pollution standards. That would result in weaker public health protections, as regulators would consider only a fraction of the benefits of pollution proposals and standards would appear to cost more than they are worth.
“The main reason why they want to do this is to cut the legs off EPA in terms of our ability to protect public health and natural resources from toxics that are impacting our lives today,” said the Obama-era EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents a politically diverse group of state and local air regulators, argues the administration should continue to weigh co-benefits. Executive director Miles Keogh said co-benefits should be counted because they keep people from having to pay more in doctor’s bills and miss more work.
“When you quit smoking it saves you a lot of money in what you’re paying for cigarettes,” he said, “but it saves you money in other ways that’s not just what you’re paying for cigarettes.”
The mercury rule also helped reduce health problems and early deaths from the small particles of pollution people inhale from coal plants.
Trump agencies have been trying to boost coal by rescinding a slate of rules the industry opposes. For example, the EPA is weakening climate change standards for current and new coal plants, which have trouble competing with cheaper natural gas and renewable power.
In addition to emitting greenhouse gases, coal plants are the major source of mercury pollution in the US. The human body absorbs mercury through the air, land and water, and from fish that accumulate the neurotoxin as methylmercury.
The EPA has previously noted that more than 75,000 newborns in the US each year may have a higher risk of learning disabilities from in-utero methylmercury exposure.
Between 2006 and 2016, Driscoll said, mercury pollution from power plants declined 85% due to a combination of state and federal crackdowns and decline in coal use. Still, most people have mercury in their bodies.
In these critical times …
… The Guardian’s US editor John Mulholland urges you to show your support for independent journalism with a year-end gift to The Guardian. We are asking our US readers to help us raise $1 million dollars by the new year to report on the most important stories in 2019.
A note from John:
In normal times we might not be making this appeal. But these are not normal times. Many of the values and beliefs we hold dear at The Guardian are under threat both here in the US and around the world. Facts, science, humanity, diversity and equality are being challenged daily. As is truth. Which is why we need your help.
Powerful public figures choose lies over truths, prefer supposition over science; and select hate over humanity. The US administration is foremost among them; whether in denying climate science or hating on immigrants; giving succor to racists or targeting journalists and the media. Many of these untruths and attacks find fertile ground on social media where tech platforms seem unable to cauterise lies. As a result, fake is in danger of overriding fact.
Almost 100 years ago, in 1921, the editor of The Guardian argued that the principal role of a newspaper was accurate reporting, insisting that “facts are sacred.” We still hold that to be true. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, but the challenge is more intense than ever as digital disruption threatens traditional media’s business model. We pride ourselves on not having a paywall because we believe truth should not come at a price for anyone. Our journalism remains open and accessible to everyone and with your help we can keep it that way.
We want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has supported The Guardian so far. We hope to pass our goal by early January 2019. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. Please make a year-end gift today to show your ongoing support for our independent journalism. Thank you.