Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Chinese city of Xi’an has some of the worst air quality in the world. Yet its air is significantly safer than the air in U.S. cities, according to a new study.
And if you have trouble believing that, then you ought to have trouble believing Obama Environmental Protection Agency claims that U.S. ambient air quality is killing tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people per year.
The point of the original post is there is often discrepancies in what the EPA states even when looking at their own literature. For example take this graph:
How does that correlate with them often citing the increase in asthma cases as justification for more pollution control?
Another beef I have is the new rules over mercury control which is going to cost consumers tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. According to the EPA themselves US coal plants play a very minor role in the amount of mercury emitted on a global scale and contribute very little to that inside US borders, the net effect of this legislation is negligible.
Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.
If we were to eliminate all mercury emission from US coal plants it's whopping 1% of the global pool, what's the point when weighted against the monetary costs or the ever increasing amounts of emissions from Asia which accounts for 50% of the global pool?
We need environmental laws, they are important and going back to how it was prior to the 80's would obviously be a step backwards but those laws need to be practical. My Uncle bought an oil truck around 2000, it cost about $60K. If he had bought in the early 90's it would have been about $40K maybe $50K..... today it's approaching $100K and a lot of that increase can be attributed to pollution control costs which also adds a tremendous amount to maintenance costs.
There has to be a practical limit, we could eliminate all pollution but that's really pointless if you can no longer afford to turn the lights on in your house, heat it or even put food on the table.
What do you prefer, a perfectly clean environment without a single pollutant from man or food on the table? There is limits to what is practical.
How hard is that to understand?
No one is saying that the environment has to be perfectly clean. Futhermore, no one has EVER said that we must sacrifice our ability to put food on the table in order to have clean air, water, and soil. That is a myth perpetrated by those who actually pollute the environment and don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
So we're in agreement, we need practical regulations.
Care to comment on what I posted about the mercury? Does it seem practical to you when there is little or even a negative benefit? The reason I can suggest negative benefit is because these rules will increase energy costs thereby increasing the cost to manufacturing giving them even more reason to move overseas which will only increase emissions.
So we're in agreement, we need practical regulations.
Care to comment on what I posted about the mercury? Does it seem practical to you when there is little or even a negative benefit? The reason I can suggest negative benefit is because these rules will increase energy costs thereby increasing the cost to manufacturing giving them even more reason to move overseas which will only increase emissions.
Do you have any understanding of the toxic effects of mercury? There is no IF with regard to the toxicity of mercury. It is toxic, period, particularly to children. Now, what conversation do you want to have with your grandchildren with regard to the legacy of soil and water pollution we leave behind for them to deal with? Do you really want to tell them that we polluted the water they drink and the soil they use to grow their crops because we were too greedy to do anything about it?
Everything in life has a cost. The question is what are you willing to risk so you can keep that extra light bulb burning that you could have done without?
Do you have any understanding of the toxic effects of mercury?
Yes I do, the primary issue is neurological. eg it makes you stupid. Just an FYI but natural emissions are about equal to man made emissions on the global scale.
Here's the cost benefit analysis from the EPA. It should be noted they give some pretty impressive figures in this document however most of the benefits are "co benefits" associated with the reduction in PM which is unrelated to Mercury and already regulated by the EPA. The actual monetary benefits for mercury reduction itself are negative. Since these regualtions are aimed at the boogeyman mercury I'll stick to what the EPA estimates the benefits will be be.
Yes I do, the primary issue is neurological. eg it makes you stupid. Just an FYI but natural emissions are about equal to man made emissions on the global scale.
That is just not true at all. It doesn't work that way. If it did, the concentrations we see in fly ash and in air emissions and in groundwater around power plants would be the same as background levels. And that just ain't the case.
Quote:
The actual monetary benefits for mercury reduction itself are negative.
So what? Are you going to tell your granchildren that you didn't want anything done about the toxic emissions of mercury that are poisoning them because you wanted to save a couple of extra pennies on your electric bill? Is this the kind of morality you believe in?
Quote:
I'm trying to have a rational discussion about this, can you? Do these regualtions still seem practical?
If you want to have a rational discussion with me (I'm a geologist who has worked as an environmental consultant for 22 years), then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to tell me things about my profession that you obviously don't know anything about. Not only does mercury impact communities, it also impacts workers at the power plants. Even more so since they are nearest to the source.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
