How can a lay person such as myself get a better understanding of how unfeasible it is for industry to actually curb its mercury outputs?

Gordon,

I think you've asked a really great question. That's the main point, after all, isn't it! If industry can easily cut back, at each plant, 90% of it's emissions, then why not?

On the other hand, if 90% isn't acheivable everywhere, then how much can be, at what cost? We might find out that Bush's 70% reduction makes a lot more sense. Or not.

I hate to push off responsibility, but this is really the kind of thing you want a full-time journalist to do -- to look into some typical power plants, look at how much it would cost them to upgrade to this or that level, and then report that.

The fact they scream and yell without doing so is an indication of their lack commitment to getting the full story out when it takes some research on their part.

Instead, the media is incredibly lazy: they're content to just take soundbites from each side (if we're lucky), report them, (often) slap an inflammatory anti-Bush headline on the mess, and then drop it into the morning paper.

And then wonder why we hold them in low regard.

I find it interesting that you cite the Kyoto treaty "Critics also bashed Bush's "cap and trade" approach to mercury emissions, saying it was a dangerous approach because it might allow pollution to continue more in some areas. And yet "cap and trade" is exactly what the much-loved Kyoto treaty did with carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions! With the exact same drawbacks!!

Do you find it at all ironic that the US (re: G.W. Bush) refused to sign this international treaty. Yet you attempt to use it as a justifiction for his approach to reduction of pollutants (esp. mercury)?
Sincerely,
T. Wagner

I find it interesting that you cite the Kyoto treaty "Critics also bashed Bush's "cap and trade" approach to mercury emissions, saying it was a dangerous approach because it might allow pollution to continue more in some areas. And yet "cap and trade" is exactly what the much-loved Kyoto treaty did with carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions! With the exact same drawbacks!!

Do you find it at all ironic that the US (re: G.W. Bush) refused to sign this international treaty. Yet you attempt to use it as a justifiction for his approach to reduction of pollutants (esp. mercury)?
Sincerely,
T. Wagner

Suggestions from the Food and Drug Administration
Don't eat more than one meal a week of rock bass, perch or crappie over 9 inches long from inland lakes; or any size largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike or muskie from inland lakes. Women of childbearing age and children younger than 15 should not eat more than one meal per month of those fish.

Does this advice not send up a red flag??

Retired General Motors engine emissions research scientist Phil Mohan, 74, lives across the street from Orchard Lake in West Bloomfield. Fish in that lake were rated the worst in Metro Detroit for mercury contamination, at number 12. He’s not worried by the report. (By the way this is from one of the most affluent counties in the nation) “In order to believe analytical results, I have to see the chemistry. Generally, mercury is in our environment and it shouldn’t be ingested in any great quantity. Would I eat the fish from this lake? Yes, I’d eat some. Maybe not the big ones, because they concentrate the most toxin. But I’d eat some.”

Yeah, I see that as a huge vote of confidence.

Do we feel that increased or trade off emissions are truly a good idea.
Geez… can you not see that we can barely eat the fish caught in our own Great Lakes (the largest fresh water system in the world)?

The main problem here is that mercury is by far a much more dangerous pollutant than carbon dioxide and sulfur and should be treated accordingly. They are all bad but mercury can make you retarded! So no power plant should be able to avoid reducing emissions by buying their way out of it. And it should be done as soon as possible not whenever power plants get around to it. I have a hard time finding sympathy for power plants. They make plenty of money at the expense of our health. All people should be protected equally from this horrible pollutant. The Bush Administration proposal would allow a whole generation of children to be adversly affected by mercury before all power plants would have to be in compliance and even then some would still be able to buy their way out of it. How would you feel if it was your child that was born with mental retardation because of mercury contamination?

I see we haven't been paying close attention to the content of the article above, as usual. Better late than never...

And yet "cap and trade" is exactly what the much-loved Kyoto treaty did with carbon dioxide and sulfur emissions! ... Do you find it at all ironic that the US (re: G.W. Bush) refused to sign this international treaty.

The usual criticism of Kyoto (offered by Bjorn Lomborg, etc.) is usually that it will do very little to reduce CO2 emissions (as Europe is currently demonstrating) at great cost. It's not that cap-and-trade is inherently wrong or ineffective: it's that Kyoto is.

Kyoto does nothing to affect reductions in global CO2 levels because important developing nations are not part of the treaty. Nor are the reductions feasible, critics say. (Again, Europe demonstrates this quite well with their non-compliance.)

On the other hand, a domestic mercury cap-and-trade approach, combined with a mandated reduction, would reduce total mercury output in the US: everyone here would be involved.

Can you understand this key difference?

Also, one might reasonably object that the role of CO2 in global warming is controversial, whereas nobody argues that mercury isn't a toxin: so it's more valuable to limit known dangers than speculative ones.

I have no idea, personally, if cap-and-trade is effective or not. Some argue that tax energy taxes make more sense. I have no dog in that hunt; my point here is not about which approach is more effective. My point is that reporting about the Bush administrations' policies have been hypocritical and deceptive.

Do we feel that increased or trade off emissions are truly a good idea.

If you'd read the article above, you'd discover the Bush administration has recommended reducing mercury emissions, not "increasing" them, as you allege.

Please, people, let's read things before commenting, okay?

So no power plant should be able to avoid reducing emissions by buying their way out of it.

I disagree entirely.

Imagine you want to reduce mercury levels by 70%, and you have two power plants. Plant A can easily reduce by 70%, but, with a bit of extra investment, could also reduce to 90%. Of course, if you mandate a 70% reduction, they're only going to reduce to 70%, not the more expensive 90% reduction.

Now consider Plant B: Because it uses an older technology, it can only reasonably reduce mercury by 50%. If you want more than that, we'd have to close the plant and build another, newer one. So, in your scheme, they have to do that.

Now, consider the same situation with cap-and-trade: Plant B can pay Plant A to lower their output a bit more. So you still get the same 70% average reduction overall, but it costs less.

I have a hard time finding sympathy for power plants. They make plenty of money at the expense of our health.

Actually, Lisa, you pay for these reductions: not them. They'll make the same profit level either way: extra costs are passed along to you and your family.

How would you feel if it was your child that was born with mental retardation because of mercury contamination?

It would be a tragedy.

Lisa, mercury may be dangerous, but it's not the only dangerous thing in the world. When we talk about reducing risks, we have to do a cost/benefit analysis to make sure that we are saving as many lives as possible with the money we spend or costs we incur.

Perhaps more lives would be saved if we put that extra cost into cancer or heart disease research instead of mercury reduction? Perhaps more lives would be saved if we used that money to provide better insecticides to malaria-ridden regions of Africa?

I'm not saying I know the answers to these trade-offs, but it's not just enough to get emotional about one issue, and end up spending money in an inefficient way when far more lives could have been saved by some other investment. We don't have infinite funds, so we should use those we have wisely.

If we want to reduce some pollutant, we should do so in the most economical fashion possible. I understand your passion, but we also have to think.