The Implications of a Trump EPA Proposal to Weaken Mercury Emission Regulations
The long-term considerations of mercury pollution
By Claire Todaro
The Progressive Teen Contributor
On December 28th, 2018, the Trump administration proposed a rollback of Obama-era mercury emission regulations.
RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THROUGH THE BURNING of coal, mercury can have devastating consequences for both humans and the environment. Regulating these emissions is important as it not only limits mercury pollution but other harmful particulates as well. Such emissions can damage the brain and nervous system, lower IQ levels, impair motor skills, increase risk of heart attack, and are particularly threatening for developing infants. Despite the consequences, the Trump-run Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) argues increased health and safety risks are less important than the monetary cost of such a regulation.
This rollback is part of Trump’s broader effort to revive the struggling American coal industry, one he frequently espoused throughout his 2016 Presidential bid. Along with reducing mercury emission regulations, the administration has proposed a reduction in carbon dioxide and coal ash regulations. According to NPR, “The Federal Energy Information Administration says U.S. coal consumption in 2018 is expected to be at its lowest level in nearly four decades. Even as coal use rises in China and India, the domestic coal industry has struggled to compete with cheaper electricity produced from natural gas and renewable energy.”
The Trump administration’s actions aim to overturn almost 20 years of federal policy regarding mercury emissions. The EPA first ruled that mercury emissions must be regulated in 2000, and George W. Bush was the first to implement such a restriction in 2005. In 2011, under the Obama administration, a proposal was issued which required coal power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 90% — the largest amount restricted in history.
Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s, the EPA has determined which regulations to implement via cost-benefit analyses, taking into account the net economic impact of each decision. The Obama-era EPA followed an even more comprehensive decision-making process, including co-benefits, which are indirect results of placing new regulations. When mercury emissions are limited, so are soot, nitrous oxide, and various particulates, providing co-benefits further supporting this regulation. With these additional pollutants factored in, the Obama administration found $90 billion worth of public health benefits annually. The Trump administration found only $4–6 million in benefits, with a $9 billion cost to continue implementing the regulation. Essentially, Trump’s EPA has drastically altered the cost-benefit analysis process for mercury pollution policy. It only recognizes certain health implications, thus lowering the monetary value of the benefits of restricting emissions.
This removal of ancillary factors in cost-benefit analyses may have severe implications for all environment protection regulations, making justification more vulnerable to legal challenges. According to The New York Times, “While the proposal technically leaves the mercury restrictions in place, by revising the underlying justifications for them the administration has opened the door for coal mining companies, which have long opposed the rules, to challenge them in court.”
Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA air administrator, remains unworried. In a recent NPR article, Holmstead said the EPA is not restricting courts from considering the co-benefits of a certain regulation, but merely saying it should not justify a regulation like “this case, where virtually all the benefits are co-benefits.”
Mercury’s impact on the environment requires more thorough examination. The heavy metal is vaporized in coal power plants, and released into the atmosphere. When it rains, mercury contaminates bodies of water and aquatic life. Mercury hasn’t only contaminated marine life, however. Traces have been found in other animals, from polar bears in the Arctic to pythons in the Florida Everglades. Mercury is not fatal to most animals, but it greatly reduces reproduction and is transmitted through generations. Thus, mercury can completely disrupt fragile ecosystems. According to the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Exposed animals have trouble ridding their bodies of mercury, and it accumulates in tissue with every link in the food chain. Long-lived predators tend to carry the heaviest loads. Research and public attention have largely focused on contaminated fish, the main route of human exposure.”
Mercury’s impact on humans often comes from fish consumption. Mercury can harm the heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. One in twelve women in the U.S. has mercury levels high enough to put her baby at risk of development problems. Toxic levels of mercury in pregnant mothers can impair cognitive growth, nervous system development, and verbal abilities in babies. The Obama administration reported that its regulations would prevent approximately 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, and 11,000 premature deaths annually.
Although the coal industry and National Mining Association wholeheartedly support Trump’s rollback, most utility companies have urged the administration to maintain current regulations. These companies have already invested billions to comply with Obama-era environmental standards by implementing more effective pollution controls. Reversal of these regulations will complicate business and raise prices for consumers. Many worry these pollution controls will no longer be utilized if the new proposal were to be implemented.
The Los Angeles Times warns, “If Trump’s EPA succeeds, it could severely undermine environmental protections in ways that are technical and therefore murky to the general public, but could lead to increased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerous in the near future and devastating in the long term.”
As of right now, the proposal is open to public comment for 60 days on the Federal Register. Environmental organizations are attempting to take the proposal to court.
