I was going to write this week about the election, which candidate has the best plans for the environment ' then I realized that no one really deserved to be on a pedestal for their plans for the environment. Obama and Clinton have the most thorough plans of the candidates, but they are so similar that it's hard to decipher which is which.
What they both support is a cap-and-trade system to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent of what they were in 1990 by 2050. A cap-and-trade system is essentially a system that puts a limit on emissions for power plants, but allows them to then trade permits with other power plants for emissions credit. So if one plant has an extra 50 tons to spare and another needs those 50 tons to stay under the limit, they can trade credits.
What a cap-and-trade system does allow is space for profits. While I could harp about how a cap-and-trade policy isn't the ideal solution, that's not what really makes me angry. I mean, it's a start, but it gets worse.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which is supposed to be the governmental watchdog for environmental policy, tried to make a loophole for power plants to avoid strict emissions standards in exchange for a lax cap-and-trade agreement of mercury, according to The Washington Post. Its attempt to allow power plants to trade mercury violated the Clean Air Act, and a federal appeals court rejected the plan.
When coal is burned, mercury is emitted as a vapor from the process ' hello, coal-fired power plants. It's a substance that is found in computers, televisions and, yes, even fluorescent light bulbs. Although mercury can have negative neurological effects on anyone who comes into contact with it, the effects are even worse when directly ingested. It is especially dangerous for expectant mothers who ingest mercury because it puts their unborn babies at serious risk for birth defects (oh, the EPA is responsible for all this info ' interesting). But why would anyone be silly enough to ingest mercury?
Well, it could have something to do with mercury being put into the atmosphere and entering the waterways when the toxins mix with rainfall. Another suspect is mountaintop removal mining, which is when, to get to coal in the tops of mountains, explosives are used to get through the top of the mountain. Remember burning coal and how it releases mercury? Explosives + coal = burning. The debris, of course, easily can make its way into waterways. This is a method used around this area to get to some of the coal around southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, according to the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition.
It only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 25-acre lake of fish, according to an article from the Environment News Service. This might explain why dozens of Native American tribes were also in protest of this mercury loophole from the EPA, as a study in Environmental Health Perspectives explains that those who consume more fish are more at risk for exposure to mercury ' Native Americans being a notable consumer of fish and, essentially, mercury.
There was a mercury scare in New York in January when high levels of mercury where found in the tuna sushi all over Manhattan, so much so that a doctor was quoted in a New York Times article that a meal with that much mercury shouldn't be ingested more than once every three weeks to avoid eating more than the acceptable EPA levels of mercury.
There was the Minamata mercury poisoning in Japan during the mid-20th century when, according to The Guardian, the Chisso Corporation was dumping mercury waste into Minamata Bay, contaminating the fish and a population for whom seafood is a dietary staple. Babies were born with severe deformities, and adults suffered spasms, blurred vision and hearing loss. The government has only certified 2,264 victims (1,435 have already died), but over 17,000 have applied to be recognized as victims in the government settlement.
Mercury isn't pretty, and a cap-and-trade system for it isn't helpful. I don't understand how companies can trade these chemicals as if they were trading baseball cards. It is a toxic chemical that is still going to pollute no matter which company claims or doesn't claim however many tons each year. Whether plants A and B both have 10 tons, or plant A has seven and plant B has three is irrelevant when people's food supply is still being contaminated regardless.
It is irresponsible of the EPA to try to implement a policy like this, and I am yet again disappointed by bureaucracy, politics and profits. We might live in a world of capitalism, but does that really entail a complete loss of compassion for the people who suffer simply because they need a meal to eat, or the rain in their water is toxic? Rousseau said humans have instinctual compassion, but sometimes I wonder ' I mean, isn't it the EPA's job to protect those people and the environment?
We need an agency (or better yet, a president) in place that is less worried about party lines and corporations and more worried about the serious consequences these industries and their waste have on the greater population.
Cathy Wilson is a junior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at cw224805@ohiou.edu.
17 Archives
Cathy Wilson
200802297267midsize.jpeg
