EPA and the Merucry Scare
Trying to correct all the disinformation about ?mercury and air toxics? is a full-time job
Ever since public, congressional and union anger and anxiety persuaded the Environmental Protection Agency to delay action on its economy-strangling carbon dioxide rules, EPA has been on a take-no-prisoners crusade to impose other job-killing rules for electricity generating plants.
As President Obama said when America rejected cap-tax-and-trade, ?there?s more than one way to skin the cat.? If Congress won’t cooperate, his EPA will lead the charge. Energy prices will ?skyrocket.? Companies that want to build coal-fired power plants will ?go bankrupt.? His administration will ?fundamentally transform? our nation?s energy, economic, industrial and social structure.
EPA?s proposed ?mercury and air toxics? rules for power plants are built on the false premise that we are still breathing the smog, soot and poisons that shrouded London, England and Gary, Indiana sixty years ago. In reality, US air quality improved steadily after the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted.
Moreover, since 1990, even as US coal use more than doubled, coal-fired power plant emissions declined even further: 58% for mercury, 67% for nitrogen oxides, 70% for particulates, 85% for sulfur dioxide ? and just as significantly for most of the other 80 pollutants that EPA intends to cover with its 946-pages of draconian proposed regulations.
It?s time to clear the political air ? and scrub out some of the toxic disinformation that EPA and its allies have been emitting for months, under a multi-million-dollar ?public education? campaign that EPA has orchestrated and funded, to frighten people into supporting its new rules. PR firms, religious and civil rights groups, environmental activists and college students are eagerly propagating the myths.
EPA?s ?most wanted? outlaw is mercury. But for Americans this villain is as real as Freddy or Norman Bates. To turn power plant mercury emissions into a mass killer, EPA cherry-picked studies and data, and ignored any that didn?t fit its ?slasher? film script. As my colleague Dr. Willie Soon and I pointed out in our Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily articles, US power plants account for just 0.5% of mercury emitted into North American?s air; the other 99.5% comes from natural and foreign sources.
Critics assailed our analysis, but the studies support us, not EPA ? as is abundantly clear in Dr. Soon?s 85-page report, available at www.AffordablePowerAlliance.org. The report and studies it cites fully support our conclusion that America?s fish are safe to eat (in part because they contain selenium and are thus low in biologically available methylmercury, mercury?s more toxic cousin), and blood mercury levels for American women and children are already below FDA?s and other agencies? safe levels.
Not only are EPA?s mercury claims fraudulent. They are scaring people away from eating fish, which are rich in essential fatty acids. In other words, EPA is actively harming people?s nutrition and health.
One of the more bizarre criticisms of our analysis contends that mercury released in forest fires ?originates from coal-burning power plants,? which supposedly shower the toxin onto trees, which release it back into the atmosphere during arboreal conflagrations. In fact, mercury is as abundant in the earth?s crust as silver and selenium. It is absorbed by trees through their roots ? and their leaves, which absorb those 0.5% (power plant) and 99.5% (other) atmospheric mercury components through their stomata.
Another bizarre criticism is that mercury isn?t the issue. The real problem is ultra-fine (2.5 micron) soot particles. So now the ?power plant mercury is poisoning babies and children? campaign was just a sideshow! Talk about changing the subject. Now, suddenly, the alleged health benefits and lives saved would come from controlling soot particles. That claim is as bogus as the anti-mercury scare stories.
Even EPA and NOAA data demonstrate that America?s air already meets EPA?s national standard, which is equivalent to disseminating an ounce of soot (about one and a quarter super-pulverized charcoal briquettes) across a volume of air one-half mile long, one-half mile wide and one story high. That?s less than you?re likely to get from sitting in front of a campfire, fireplace or wood-burning stove, inhaling airborne particulates, hydrocarbon gases and heavy metals. (Search the internet for Danish, EPA and Forest Service studies and advisories on these popular ?organic? heating and cooking methods.)
Simply put, EPA?s proposed rules will impose huge costs ? for few health or environmental benefits, beyond what we are already realizing through steadily declining emissions under existing regulations.
Besides bringing mythical health benefits, EPA claims its lower national emission standards will simply put all states and utility companies ?on the same level playing field.? This pious rhetoric may be fine for states that get little electricity from coal. However, for states (especially manufacturing states) that burn coal to generate 48-98% of their electricity, the new rules will be job, economy and revenue killers.
Energy analyst Roger Bezdek estimates that utilities will have to spend over $130 billion to retrofit older plants, under the measly three-year (2014) deadline that EPA is giving them, under a sweetheart court deal the agency brokered with radical environmental groups. On top of that, utilities will have to spend another $30 billion a year for operations, maintenance and extra fuel for the energy-intensive scrubbers and other equipment they will be forced to install.
Many companies simply cannot justify those huge costs for older power plants. Thus Dominion Power, American Electric Power and other utilities have announced that they will simply close dozens of generating units, representing tens of thousands of megawatts ? enough to electrify tens of millions of homes and businesses. Illinois alone will lose nearly 3,500 MW of reliable, affordable, baseload electricity ? with little but promises of intermittent pixie-dust wind turbine electricity to replace it.
Electricity costs are set to skyrocket, just as the President promised. Consumers can expect to pay at least 20% more in many states by 2014 or shortly thereafter. According to the Chicago Tribune, hard-pressed Illinois families and businesses will shell out 40-60% more! How?s that for an incentive to ramp up production and hire more workers? How?s that ?hope and change? working out for families that had planned to fix the car, save for college and retirement, take a vacation, get that long-postponed surgery?
For a mid-sized hospital or factory that currently pays $500,000 annually for electricity (including peak-demand charges), those rate hikes could add $300,000 a year to its electricity bill. That?s equivalent to ten full-time entry-level employees ? that now won’t get hired, or will get laid off.
And it?s not just private businesses that will get hammered. As the Chi Trib notes, if the Chicago public school system wants to keep the lights on and computers running for two semesters, by 2014 it will get hit for an extra $2.7 million it doesn?t have, to pay for skyrocketing electricity costs.
Carry those costs through much of the US economy ? especially the 26 states that get 48-98% of their electricity from coal-fired power plants ? and we are talking about truly ?fundamental transformations.? Millions will be laid off, millions more won’t be hired, millions of jobs will be shipped overseas ? and millions will endure brownouts, blackouts and increasing social unrest.
EPA generally refuses to consider the economic effects of its regulations, except to insist that even its most oppressive rules will generate benefits ?far in excess? of any expected costs. Perhaps it will at least consider the obvious, unavoidable and monumental adverse physical and mental health impacts of its rate hikes and layoffs ? on nutrition, healthcare, depression, family violence and civil rights progress.
The Environmental Protection Agency has always had a horse-blinder attitude about environmental policy. Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, it has become a truly rogue agency.
It?s time for Congress, state legislatures, attorneys-general, courts and We the People to bring some balance and common sense into the picture. Otherwise 9.1% unemployment ? with Black and Hispanic unemployment even higher ? will soon look like boom times.