http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70758.html
I realize this is not environmental science, but this is finally some potential good news concerning our world. The EPA is moving to limit the mercury, arsenic, selenium, cyanide, and other toxic chemicals emitted from power plants in the US. Over half of mercury emissions come from the power plants, and with reducing these harmful chemicals in the air, smog emissions will also be reduced.
Now this sounds like a pretty good thing to do, right? Our environment is in really crappy shape thanks to our love of burning coal. "EPA says the new standards will prevent 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year, along with 130,000 childhood asthma symptoms and 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis in children." So, as well as helping the environment, it will improve the health of everyone living here.
The EPA has been pushing to make these new standards for 20 years, and many republicans in congress are still opposing and aiming to stop the new rule. Their arguments include: " the science behind the requirements is unclear, since childhood asthma has gone up recently, while overall pollution levels have gone down. Other concerns surround the timeline for the rule’s implementation, and whether the expected mass shutdown of older coal-fired power plants will affect reliability of the electric grid."
I think that (along with more jobs being created) the new standards are going to be a positive change in the long run for the environment and our country. Everyone needs to move forward in trying to clean the air anyways, so I don't understand why there is opposition to something that is desperately needed. Do you agree or disagree with the new limits on mercury/ other toxic chemical emissions? What would be any benefits if the rule is stopped?
They probably don't want in to pass because they have some form of special interest involved. Maybe the companies that emit pollutants over a certain amount have to pay money to the government or something. Sorry. I'm bitter.
ReplyDeleteThe only other thing I can think of is that this might be pricey if they have to install new equipment (because green energy is expensive energy, and congress is worried about their own pocketbooks... .___________________.) and it could be tedious getting all of the companies to implement the new technology and check up on them to make sure they're lowering their emissions.
Also, I'm really confused about the Republican's remark concerning the science. Last I checked, you don't need science to know that pollution is bad and reducing pollution is good! I'm pretty sure my dog, who may or may not have doggy-autism, has even embraced that concept.
I think the dust on top of my SAT book would even understand that concept.... haha. This is all good news! But sometimes the EPA doesn't really follow through with their ideas/promises so let's just see how this pans out!
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make any sense to oppose such a change. Pollution, heart attacks, and asthma are bad. Period. If something like EPA's new standards can prevent these things and yet its still being opposed, then there should be an extremely significant reason for it. I can only assume that it's money and how expensive it would be to implement and maintain the new standards (like Hannah said).
ReplyDeleteThey probably just want to prevent the changes because it might cause businesses to have to change some of their practices - costing them money. However, if so many lives could be saved and health issues prevented, then these changes are more than worth it. In the long run, they were inevitable. Companies could not continue to pollute so heavily and get away with it.
ReplyDelete