EPA Delivers Holiday Gift: New Mercury Rules

What, you don't want me?<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ittybittiesforyou/4969087398/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Jenn and Tony Bot</a>/Flickr

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A little bit of good news for the holidays: the EPA is taking some coal out of our stocking. On Wednesday, the agency announced the new national standards on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, an event that has enviros and public health groups cheering.

The rules, according to the EPA, will yield $9 in public health benefits for every $1 that the industry has to spend on technology to cut pollution. Officially called the utility maximum achievable control technology (or utility MACT), the pollution limits will also prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks each year, according to the agency. Overjoyed statements from groups like Greenpeace, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Green for All, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Sierra Club, and Environment America have flooded reporters’ inboxes. The Evangelical Environmental Network, which had campaigned for the rules on the argument that “mercury pollution is a pro-life issue,” was also quite pleased.

The Center for Progressive Reform had a good post on the new rules, and David Roberts at Grist explains why they’re are such a BFD.

The emissions limits have been in the works since a set of amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990—which, if you’re keeping track, is a kind of a long time to wait. The EPA is touting these as the first standards on these pollutants, but that’s not entirely true. The Bush administration did put out mercury rules, but they were crappy and got thrown out in court for failing to protect public health.

Of course, even though it’s had plenty of time to get ready for them, the energy industry doesn’t like the rule because it means they might have to shut down some coal plants that can’t meet the standards. The rules will probably put somewhere between 32 and 58 power plants out of business, according to the AP’s analysis. This is not, however, going to cause massive blackouts as doom-saying foes of the rule have claimed. And by the EPA’s estimates, 60 percent of coal- and oil-fired power plants already have pollution controls; it’s just the oldest and dirtiest that would be affected. Which is, of course, another reason why enviros are so happy.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend