The proposed new rules for mercury emissions are a clear example of how the Bush administration is undermining environmental regulations. Here is news round up about the situation:
Note: If we are going to defeat Bush in November, I think we need to get focused on some issues beyond Iraq and the War on Terrorism. We need to focus people on issues of education, environment, health care and the deficit--all areas where Bush is very vulnerable.
Apparently some officials in Florida (and around the country) aren't too happy about the proposed new mercury rules:
Florida officials battle EPA over mercury emissions plan
By JANINE A. ZEITLIN
April 11, 2004 (
full story)
Florida's lawmakers, public health officials and environmental advocates are waging a fierce battle against the way the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to curtail mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the nation's largest unregulated sources of mercury...
Lawmakers and local environmental officials say the EPA proposal threatens the health of Florida's children and the state's seafood industry. Earlier this month, a coalition of 45 U.S. senators -- including Florida's Bill Nelson and Bob Graham -- sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt urging him to withdraw the proposal...
The EPA's proposed mercury rule pledges to reduce mercury emissions from coal power plants by 70 percent by 2018. Mercury is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. While coal-fired power plants aren't the only contributor of mercury to the environment, they are the largest unregulated source of mercury in the nation.
Critics of the proposal say it gives industry too much leeway and time to reduce emissions. They say technology exists for a mercury emissions reduction by 90 percent by 2008, which was mandated under the Clinton Administration.
70% by 2018 or 90% by 2008--which do you think most Americans would support?
How does the Bush administration justify the lesser standard? By fudging reports.
New Jersey Scientist Says Rewritten Mercury Regulations Downplay Toxicity
By Alex Nussbaum (
full story)
Apr. 8 - The Bush administration rewrote scientific language in its mercury regulations to downplay the chemical's toxic effects, a New Jersey scientist said Wednesday.
The results "appeared to be edited so as to give less weight to the potential health impacts of mercury," said Alan Stern, a state toxicologist who worked on a federal report measuring mercury's impact.
That report helped form the health basis for the administration's controversial plan to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, pollution that contaminates water and fish and can damage the brains of young children and fetuses...
But the management and budget office reworded the findings in ways that made mercury's impacts seem less certain, Stern said. The changes were first reported in Wednesday's New York Times, which cited five other panel members who questioned the rewording.
"It was language that changed 'is' to 'could be' or that 'there is an association' to 'there may be an association but it has not been proven'" Stern told The Record.
Stern said none of the new wording was inaccurate. Some changes made by the White House in the health report were fair and clarified what had been imprecise warnings about mercury, Stern and other researchers said.
But where the administration had a chance to interpret uncertain or contradictory research, it came down on the side of minimizing the threat, he said.
Where did they get this new language to describe the mercury threat?
Senators petition GOP for hearing on mercury rules
By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune (
full story)
It has since been revealed that the draft regulations directly borrowed language from memos written by lobbyists for the utility industry, whose facilities would be required to meet the new standards.