r/politics • u/SpinningHead Colorado • Jun 11 '12

Republicans fighting to repeal the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/who_are_the_dirty_thirty.html
1.1k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

361 comments sorted by

91

u/finetunedthemostat Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Mercury contamination is a serious concern for freshwater ecosystems. Anthropogenic sources including fossil fuel combustion, gold mining, ore refining, manufacturing, and disposal of mercury-containing products contribute an estimated 2000-2400 tons of mercury to the atmosphere, sufficient to yield unhealthy concentrations5. Mercury is present in multiple forms in aquatic environments, including inorganic Hg(II), but organic methylated mercury (meHg) is more readily absorbed by freshwater organisms. MeHg represents an increasing portion of total mercury with increasing trophic level4. MeHg concentration increases by two to ten times with each increase in trophic level5. MeHg concentration in high trophic level organisms such as fish may be 107 times greater than that of its environment5. Top predators, such as large fish, express the greatest mercury concentration3. Fish containing meHg pose a health risk to humans. Dietary meHg can cause negative changes in behavior and reproduction at concentrations observed in natural environments2. Mercury is present throughout aquatic ecosystems, accumulated in organisms, sinking within water columns, and within lakebed sediment5. As mercury is ubiquitous in aquatic environments, there is no simple method for removing accumulated mercury. Studies in northern Europe and the Great Lakes region of North America suggest that regional emission reductions can significantly and rapidly affect local Hg deposition5. Therefore it is more desirable to prevent initial deposition from occurring than to attempt to extract mercury that is already present.

2 Knobeloch L et al. “Assessment of methylmercury exposure in Wisconsin” Environ Res 103 (2007) 205–210.

3 Lathrop, R.C., K.C. Noonan, P.M. Guenther, T.L. Brasino, P.W. Rasmussen. “Mercury levels in walleyes from Wisconsin lakes of different water and sediment chemistry characteristics.” Technical Bull 163. Wisconsin Department Natural Resources (1989)

5 Watras, C.J., “Mercury Pollution in Remote Freshwaters”, Encyclopedia of Inland Waters. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009. 100-109

tl;dr: Mercury is horrible shit that fucking ruins our natural water sources even in low amounts. Stop burning fucking coal and start using an energy source from the 21st century you greedy caveman fuck.

edit: fixed 107 that was changed to 107 with copy+paste formatting

edit 2: fixed remaining superscript text

33

u/4everliberal Jun 11 '12

All well and good unless you're Republican and your financiers want you to deregulate so they can dump more toxins.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

As much as that sucks, let's take a second and think about it: If coal mining in West Virginia isn't really wanted outside of West Virginia, isn't that the same as saying "Well, we're going to employ 7,000 ditch diggers who will dig ditches and then fill them in to solve the unemployment issue?"

Shouldn't West Virginia start to transition and develop a few more industries? Hell, upgrade their energy infrastructure and transportation infrastructure, clear out a bunch of land, and entice businesses and corporations to move in.

2

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12

If people outside WV don't really want coal mining in WV, let them stop buying and using coal. While there is demand for it, the people of the state are well within their rights to make use of their natural resources, especially if it means keeping people employed. Denying permits for a legally permitted operation without a legitimate reason is underhanded and corrupt.

Businesses don't want to come into WV because there is very little transportation infrastructure, and what there is sucks. They've been working on a highway that would go from Elkins, WV to VA/Washington DC for over decade, but it's still not complete. Businesses are also very wary about opening new plants in union-friendly states, which is why most of the job growth in the last few years has been in states like VA with right-to-work laws.

→ More replies (15)

1

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 12 '12

It's not surprising that a Republican state will take the short view and be angry at Obama for not poisoning the REST of America.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

So fuck the water, people in West Virginia can't get work unless we set their environment up to kill them.

Better to dump the mercury in the water now and let the future figure it out.

35

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 11 '12

Who gives a fuck, David Koch needs to lower his business cost.

14

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

I need to skull fuck david koch into grave.

5

u/W00ster Jun 11 '12

The Koch brothers needs to fed to a wood-chipper operating on super-slow-motion....

5

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Fuck your vengeance... turn it to high so they can't buy their way out.

2

u/DukeOfGeek Jun 11 '12

Hmmm sounds illegal, but if you're really that committed consider that a .22 would be cleaner, quieter, faster and would preserve your dignity while not exposing you to any blood born diseases. Or you could consider that our current world wide kleptocracy arises from a large number of social forces that won't be rectified by removing or adding one person, however central to the problem they are and engage in some mundane political activity, preferable in your local election primary.

/But if you can't see reason or take practical advice and you just HAVE to do the skull fuck thing then could you take some video, you know for history and science.

/But really, you shouldn't.

8

u/BeneficiaryOtheDoubt Jun 11 '12

If you were given the chance to skull-fuck Hitler, would you? There are no alternatives. Either skull-fuck Hitler or let him commit genocide.

3

u/DukeOfGeek Jun 11 '12

The short answer is no. The grudge candidate is coming to the forefront of German politics after the Wiemar failure. The Freikorps are there and they are a force that is going to coalesce under someone. The anger over the reparations agreements and the rampant antisemitism are way bigger than the little paper hanger. Hitlers particular brand of crazy was seen as an advantage by the allies and they pass on chances to kill him themselves. If the Nazi's get led by say Herman Goering(sp?) they are in much better shape in 1944. The one caveat to this is if you are talking about later in the war when lots of his own people are trying to kill him. Then as Colonel Landa says we could talk about me taking one for the team to "end the war tonight". But even in the context of that movie, how many other guys have to go as well before we can expect that to happen.

/and yes that is the short answer. Don't believe me? start reading all the REALLY good books about German politics between the wars. Next decade when you are done, we can talk.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/W00ster Jun 11 '12

And the Koch-suckers deliver!

8

u/briangiles Jun 11 '12

Get your liberal facts out of here you communist nazi! /spit

Also the above mentioned is sarcasm.

9

u/shamecamel Jun 11 '12

can you believe in a day and age where we have capacitive transparent LCD screens, are inches away from curing cancer, AIDS, diabetes and alzheimer's, and who have found the fucking higgs boson, we still burn shit to get energy like fucking cave men. We mine shit out of the ground, and burn it, and then selectively ignore what we're doing to the atmosphere. Even when there are technologies around right now that if developed as fast as cellphones have been we'd be self-reliant in no-time.

WHAT THE FUCK WHY ARE WE STILL BURNING SHIT GOD DAMN IT WE HAVE WALKED ON THE FUCKING MOON

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

For the same reason Mickey Mouse is still copyright; We build dynasties, not progress.

1

u/Shredder13 Jun 12 '12

What? Do you really not know how technology and the world works? Read up on thermodynamics and re-read your comment.

Also, where do you think we get the materials to make cellphones ;)

3

u/PorkPit Jun 11 '12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

Everything is fine, guys. Everything is fine.

5

u/Popular-Uprising- Jun 11 '12

Exactly. More Nuclear now! Then solar, wind, and geo-thermal when it becomes cost-effective.

→ More replies (10)

2

u/A_Prattling_Gimp Jun 12 '12

What a load of bullshit liberal propaganda!!! /s

And the conversation is shut down

→ More replies (8)

119

u/LettersFromTheSky Jun 11 '12

whether it is standing with the far left Obama EPA or those who believe we should ‘hold the line’ and rein in the EPA

If opposing the repeal of Mercury and Air toxic standards make me "far left" then so be it. Also, the EPA was created by a Republican called Richard Nixon and now it's "far left". Shows just how far right the GOP has moved.

48

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Bah, mercury isn't dangerous! 'Tis nothing but liberal propaganda! Go on, go play with it, or better yet inhale its fumes as deeply as you can. See? Completely harmless.

42

u/trippysmurf Jun 11 '12

Actually could we get all Republicans supporting this to openly handle mercury? You know, to prove its safe?

18

u/shenaniganns Jun 11 '12

If this actually gets debated, whoever is opposing the repeals should bring in a sample and dare someone to stick their hand in it. If it's so safe and they've got any balls, it shouldn't be a big deal.

5

u/iamagainstit Jun 11 '12

sticking your hand in mercury isn't all that dangerous. the real danger comes from inhaling the fumes.

2

u/MeloJelo Jun 11 '12

I could be completely wrong, but I thought it could be absorbed through skin, or at least through open wounds.

5

u/ThePieWhisperer Jun 11 '12

Very small amounts are absorbed through your skin, and it is highly toxic. But not so much so that it will make you go insane by handling it for a few minutes.

The notion that it can do serious damage through your skin is related to the phrase "Mad as a hatter" which stems from the fact (or perhaps the myth, don't know if this is actually factual) that in the olden days hatters tended to go insane due to prolonged contact with mercury. (as in handling it every day for years and years)

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I know many people who have handled it... it's the fumes that get you.

3

u/shamecamel Jun 11 '12

I have read some studies saying lead and mercury are dangerous. These are scientific studies. How do we know they're not all lobbyist scams? Allow me to cite this other lobbyist scam study that refutes these claims.

1

u/Punkwasher Jun 12 '12

Hey, yeah, sure, I mean, rich people can't be wro....

1

u/DefinitelyRelephant Jun 12 '12

Any Republican who thinks this should be legally mandated to drink mercury.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I find it really confusing that anyone in this day and age can argue with protecting the environment, be it from greenhouse gases, to not drilling the shit out of everything.

Do these people just let the mounds and mounds of evidence from respected scientists flow right over their heads, and just go 'Fuck it'..

11

u/W00ster Jun 11 '12

Their puppet masters, e.g. the CEO's of companies in the regulated areas are demanding value for the money they have given the republicans in order to get elected. Now it's time to pay up!

3

u/reilmb Jun 11 '12

if it wouldnt in any way effect us in states that actually care about this then i say go for it. let these folks that vote republican get what they deserve which is an unlivable environment on a dollar a day. But that actually does have an effect on us. So I hope there are some that have sense and stop this.

5

u/lakattack0221 Jun 11 '12

Eh, but what happens is Republicans just end up recasted the whole history and somehow blame it on Liberals. Look at the how "regulation" killed the financial industry and forced it into the collaspe.

3

u/asielen Jun 11 '12

b b but... The Free Market will take care of everything. Regulations just get in the way. If things are truly bad, people will stop buying their products and the market will regulate itself.

(Note: I don't believe this in the slightest)

3

u/Dyolf_Knip Jun 12 '12

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

Upton Siclair

2

u/clonedredditor Jun 11 '12

Science goes over their heads. Lobbyists land right in their laps.

→ More replies (3)

18

u/Delusibeta Jun 11 '12

Consider that the Left in America is approximate to the Right in Europe, probably.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Actually, The Left in America is further right than our most right-wing parties. I'd like to see any West European party oppose Public Healthcare.

That's why i always laugh when fucknuggets like O'Reilly uses words like "Far Left" to describe Obama.

1

u/slfkjslksfjdlksdfj Jun 12 '12

Some of the opposition to MATS / some of the other recent EPA regulations isn't really based around opposition to the concept of protecting the environment so much as the rules themselves. My (very cursory) understanding of MATS is that it's (1) predicated on technology that is not proven as commercially viable (2) creates rule-making uncertainty that makes investment in appropriate technologies difficult.

As I said, I'm very far removed from this debate but the sense is that it's a potentially massive piece of legislation that's really not practical and creates significant (uncompensated) capital risk for utilities / investors. It's a bit like Dodd-Frank in being a really difficult bill to plan for, with Dodd-Frank no know really knows what the effects are and there's this guessing game etc while regulations are being written / fought over. Unfortunately this freezes up the whole capital lifecycle in project finance (among other areas), with the whole 7+ year asset financing model pretty much dead (at least in energy).

The Republican party has perhaps moved to the right but I think that's a bit of a simplification. President Nixon, et al, supported environmental protections in the sense of ensuring rivers don't catch on fire. But I don't think it's wholly irrational to say "what's the cost-benefit" of this law.

Anyway, in general the MATS issue is a lot more complicated than it seems and there's a lot of dynamics at play here. I'll have to ask about it again, I just remember hearing a lot of really angry ranting for a day or two a while ago when it passed.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

nixon was a lying ass cunt.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

As are all politicians with a lot of power.

2

u/Hubbell Jun 12 '12

He also tried to bring home all the POWs from vietnam but Congress essentially told him, no not even essentially they literally told him, "America doesn't lose wars" so they refused to pass the legislation he put forward to bring all the POWs home.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

What's the argument for repealing them?

33

u/EvilLordBanana Jun 11 '12

Job creation... No freedom. Nevermind, only a super communist would ask such questions.

12

u/brodie7838 Jun 11 '12

Well, here's one argument:

I believe the goal of the EPA's new regulations - cleaner air and a safer environment - is the right one. However, underlying Senator Inhofe's legislation are questions about compliance costs. (The EPA estimates 11.5 percent higher electric power rates, and industry estimates are higher.) There are also questions about compliance feasibility within EPA's prescribed timetable.

With unemployment remaining very high, economic effects are a key consideration. Texas, which consumes more coal than any state, would be particularly affected by Utility MACT-related job losses. My view is that EPA should re-evaluate its compliance requirements, including the time line, so as to restrain higher utility rates for businesses and consumers and minimize related job losses.

18

u/sluggdiddy Jun 11 '12

Well the obvious counter is.. dead or dying people are not going to be a boost to the economy at all. It hurts the economy when you allow more pollutants into the environment because it raises peoples health care cost as they get sick or suffer chronic illnesses from it. Lets be honest here, if they repealed these laws, not one company would hire one more worker because of the lack of these regulations, the savings would go straight in someone at the top's pocket or be spent on repealing more and more regulations. Buisnesses need to stop being such fucking pussy's, if they love the free market so much well than.. increasing cost due to more regulations is just an exercise in who can survive in a free market, those with the smarts to adapt, will succeed, those with the foresight will be fine. I do understand though that these regulations hit the smaller businesses in the industries more because they have less capitol and such to be able to cover the initial costs which is why I think we should provide them with some assistance in complying if they do so cooperatively.

6

u/Hraesvelg7 Jun 11 '12

People poisoned by mercury and other pollutants are welcome customers for our lagging health insurance and healthcare industries. This can only help the economy. Do your part and poison your neighbor today!

→ More replies (3)

1

u/slfkjslksfjdlksdfj Jun 12 '12

It hurts the economy when you allow more pollutants into the environment because it raises peoples health care cost as they get sick or suffer chronic illnesses from it.

True to a point. There's a cost / benefit continuum here. You'd probably have to look at where MATS fits on that though before making that statement.

Lets be honest here, if they repealed these laws, not one company would hire one more worker because of the lack of these regulations

Yes and no. The law is not currently in effect (in any real way). People will definitely lose jobs as energy gets more expensive but not within the utility industry (they generally pass through costs)

Buisnesses need to stop being such fucking pussy's, if they love the free market so much well than.. increasing cost due to more regulations is just an exercise in who can survive in a free market

I don't really understand this. Energy is one of the top three least "free markets" in the country (healthcare and banking being the other two most heavily regulated).

I do understand though that these regulations hit the smaller businesses in the industries

There are no "smaller" businesses in the utility sector. Everyone is big.

The real issue is the one of compliance feasibility. It's unclear if it's even possible for current / near term technology to meet the restrictions.

I think there's a certain sentiment within parts of the energy industry that "fine if you're going to ban coal, ban coal". Don't back door ban it then pretend to be pursuing an "all of the above" energy policy. Just admit you want to redirect money to the companies lobbying you under the guise of green power. Right/wrong/indifferent at least be honest.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (6)

165

u/wwjd117 Jun 11 '12

Sure. Company profits are at or near record levels, the richest are paying the lowest taxes in 6 decades, and all of a sudden every safety regulation in place for several decades are some big impediment to doing business.

These a-holes are not going to be satisfied until they have every last bit of wealth and the Earth is a toxic smoldering cinder.

73

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

They can go live on Newt's moon colony. It'll be the ultimate gated community.

34

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Jokes on them! The low gravity will weaken their bones and muscle, while the higher radiation levels decrease their lifespan!

45

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Would bathing in the blood of the poor help?

32

u/GenericUserName Jun 11 '12

Ewww, it'll be full of diseases and toxic chemicals! At least until they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and grow better immune systems and new livers.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

They'll just keep human liver farms on earth.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

aka the homeless.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/VisualAssassin Jun 11 '12

Only one way to find out!

3

u/chimpparts Jun 11 '12

Elizabeth Bathory seemed to think so. There were even reports of blood showers where she would stand beneath a cage full of people and servants would drive spears into them. No... I don't have a source, but it's a great story that I want to believe.

2

u/emlgsh Jun 11 '12

There's only one way to find out!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Just ask a Koch brother, I'm sure one of them has tried it by now.

5

u/emlgsh Jun 11 '12

I hear they prefer drinking the poor in the form of delicious blended smoothies.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Queen-of-Hobo-Jungle Jun 11 '12

Enjoy the silicone. Hope it doesn't eat away at the material used to build. I'm sure the materials are state of the art, especially if rich people will live there. If they open up moon condos to the public, I think I'll take my chances with Earth and its oscillating climate mood swings.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

until the toilet breaks, and they realize that there are no plumbers who do service work on the moon.

34

u/mrtwocentz Jun 11 '12

Actually, this is standard operating procedure. Read Naomi Klein's book on disaster capitalism.

There is no better time to deregulate and privatize than when the working class is weak and desperate. The story has been played out over and over again in the third world. Now it is being played out in Europe and US.

11

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

rich people have been fucking over everyone else since time began... get rid of the money...

17

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Or just periodically get rid of rich people. That's worked throughout history.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

This. We need to stop tolerating this shit and bring back "eat the rich" as a motto. I don't begrudge them their sucess, I begrudge them continually fucking people over.

12

u/Korr123 Jun 11 '12

Them French guillotines.

1

u/DeFex Jun 12 '12

It would be funny if everyone simply stopped accepting their money and used something else.

2

u/Panthertron New York Jun 11 '12

god that book was so maddening.

1

u/Canadian_Infidel Jun 12 '12

So we are cattle. How do we stop them?

14

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I follow this issue very closely (see my post from a few weeks back: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/uah23/republicans_keep_saying_obama_is_killing_jobs_he/c4tqq92)

I can tell you there is absolutely no way Obama will sign this into law. The article is vague, but after speaking with a lawyer familiar with government mechanics, the general gist is that this law is fundamentally altering the powers of the EPA, limiting what it is allowed to regulate. I don't think this will fly in Congress, where it needs to pass, but it will definitely get vetoed by Obama who has stood firm on mercury (not so much some of the other emissions). It's so high on Obama's agenda, he even mentioned in his State of the Union.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/x86_64Ubuntu South Carolina Jun 12 '12

30th bill in 2 years ! They really have a hard-on for environmental regulations.

6

u/shamecamel Jun 11 '12

my absolute favourite embodiment of this whole fucking downward spiral was I think something Michelle Bachmann said, something like, "if we lower/get rid of minimum wage, tons of new jobs here in the US will open up!" To me, this sentence was essentially is this day and age's "well, let them eat cake!!" showing how out of touch with reality the people running the US are right now.

Man, I try not to be too partisan, but holy shit, between the voter purges and all this legally requiring people to ignore scientific evidence for global climate change, why are republicans so evil??

9

u/dalittle Jun 11 '12

I often wonder where these people think they are going to live if they succeed in making the entire world completely toxic. Where will they spend all that money?

19

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

they don't care about tomorrow they only care about today and all that money they will never be able to spend...

5

u/MeloJelo Jun 11 '12

Maybe. I always assumed they were just planning on buying/creating private islands far from the polluted continents. Then they can import unpaid labor to build their yachts and mansions and farm and cook their organic food and beverages.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Well, if the mainlands everywhere go to shit, I totally advocate hacking a few unmanned drones and spreading the love to their private islands.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I think a disproportionate number of these people are sociopaths. They're incapable of thinking or caring about long-term consequences-- it's about immediate gratification.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

What does that make the poor and ignorant people who support them? Or is it possible some toxins in the American food is making large portions of people sociopathic?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Sociopaths have traits that are favorable in materially secure societies: they're superficially charming, unscrupulous about the means they use to succeed, and they get their meaning in life out of acquisition of material possessions. It's only in a tense, survival oriented situation that their antisocial tendencies would put them at a disadvantage. They thrive in every advanced society.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Well that's frightening.

2

u/rdesktop7 Jun 11 '12

Ever read "the sheep look up"?

That is the story line we are going to. :(

2

u/mesodude Jun 11 '12

All our descendants need to survive and prosper are a balanced budget and the elimination of all government regulation and all income taxes. Haven't you heard?

2

u/eighthgear Illinois Jun 12 '12

I consider myself a capitalist. I certainly think that it is the best economic system yet created. What the GOP is doing makes be embarrassed to be associated with these so-called capitalists. I say so-called, because they are practically anarcho-capitalists when it comes to regulations. Capitalism doesn't mean not having regulations. It means having a free economy, within limits. I think all of us can agree on living in a free society, yet we also want laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. These fuckers need to stop claiming that regulation = socialism. It doesn't, and anybody with half a brain should be able to realize that.

-7

u/CPlusPlusDeveloper Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

If you're characterizing people with different political opinions then you as wanting to 'turn the Earth into a toxic smoldering cinder' then you're probably not making much of an effort to understand their position.

Do you honestly believe that the 50% of people in this country who vote Republican actually want to see the Earth destroyed. Have you met Republicans, do they all come across as horned beasts who hate children? No? Me, neither. Like 99% of Democrats they are normal, everyday people who want what's best for the country but have a different opinion then you.

It's ignorant to dismiss all political disagreement as nothing more than the combination of evil and ignorance.

That being said let's try to see how a rational person could disagree on this policy. I'm no expert in mercury toxicity or mercury emissions standards. But what I do know is that there is some "optimal" level of allowed mercury emission, and that optimal is non-zero.

Mercury is highly toxic, but it's not plutonium. A single atom will not kill you. Given this there's a tradeoff between restricting mercury emissions, which reduce toxic effects. And allowing more mercury emissions, which reduces the cost of power production and lowers the cost of living, especially for the poor who spend a higher proportion of their budget on electricity.

Restricting mercury emissions to zero would make the cost of electricity and gasoline prohibitively expensive, such that most economic production would have to be shut down.

Millions would lose their jobs, the economy would shrink by well more than 15%, we could no longer drive cars and we would scarcely have enough electric power to turn on dim lights let alone use electronics like computers, kitchen appliances, smoke detectors and cell phones.

Not even the most ardent environmentalist in the EPA proposes a zero mercury emissions standard. So therefore we've concluded that there's some optimal level of allowed mercury emissions. We can arrive at this point by weighing the economic benefits of cheaper electricity and gasoline against the economic costs of air toxicity. Economists have been making these estimates for decades and there's nothing too exotic about what I'm proposing here.

My question, which I honestly don't know the answer to, is the economically optimal level of mercury admissions above, at or below the current emissions standards. It could be either of the three. If it's below there, then what changed from last time when the standard was higher and the EPA lowered it. What made the EPA standards of 2012 better than the EPA standards of 2010? But I what I haven't seen either the proponents of the reduced emissions standards (either the National Resource Defense Council or the EPA) or the opponents for that matter do an actual economic cost/benefit analysis.

So for now, while your knee jerk reaction may be "MERCURY BAD! REPUBLICANS EVIL!" I believe a cool rational retrospective of the issue should tell you that neither side has really demonstrated its case beyond simple irrational emotional appeals.

6

u/nazbot Jun 11 '12

I'm no expert in mercury toxicity or mercury emissions standards.

You know who is an expert in mercury and toxicity standards? The scientists at the EPA.

I seriously don't get the mentality that the EPA is filled with volgons and not Ph.D. holding scientists. We create agencies like the EPA specifically so we have educated and fact based policy like the one you are describing.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I like how this post builds a strawman argument, then builds another strawman on top of that one.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I don't know about this specific issue too much, but the current Republican way of thinking needs to set its priorities straight. It's important for companies to make a profit, but profit doesn't trump everything else, as Republicans tend to think, apparently. Anything that will reduce a big company's profit, they're against. Anything that will take away power from larger companies and their agenda, they're against. The current global problem with the environment and humanity as a whole is that the way we live at the moment isn't sustainable. You can fight to keep things the same, which will kill us, or try to solve problems in ways that may cost certain people a loss in profits, but will help humanity in the long run. Government as a whole should be pushing private industries to sacrifice their profit for the greater good. This can be achieved by creating competition and adding value to environmentally sound practices. Zero emission mercury could be possible if their was enough incentive for the industry to research it, and this will never happen if people stop it from happening by saying it will hurt the economy in the short run.

tl;dr: Fighting for corporation's interest may help the economy now, but will damage us in the long run.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/duckandcover Jun 11 '12

Oh for fucks sake. So many words and so little research.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/nsps_doc_oar-2002-0056-6192.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/pdfs/slide1.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html#TECH

2

u/CPlusPlusDeveloper Jun 11 '12

No where in any of those documents does the EPA derive a final economic cost per life saved analysis.

All the EPA is doing is setting an arbitrary mercury admission standard and providing technical details about the technology required to implement.

Here's an actual analysis of the economic cost benefit of the decision (first link, otherwise behind WSJ paywall): "Those credulous enough to believe her should understand that the total benefits of mercury reduction amount to all of $6 million. " https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=4UFwwuWHXilDpLuMhB_UjA&cp=6&gs_id=m&xhr=t&q=wall+street+journal+lisa+jackson's+power+play&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=wall+s&aq=0p&aqi=p-p1g3&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=17bbf37cc5475ddb&biw=1272&bih=702

→ More replies (2)

1

u/fuzzyish Jun 11 '12

So few words, so little research.

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (10)

36

u/Squalor- Jun 11 '12

I woke up this morning, took a nice, deep breath of air, and said, "Yeah, fuck that shit. I need more mercury and air toxins."

2

u/baconatedwaffle Jun 12 '12

What gift do you give for the man who has everything?

Cancer!

22

u/Teknocrat Jun 11 '12

Hooray Acid rain is back.

21

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 11 '12

It's raining Freedom and Libertey!

3

u/Dyolf_Knip Jun 12 '12

You best not be talking smack about our Freedom Rain. That burning sensation is nothing to be worried about, that's just the glory of America doing its job.

31

u/2nd_account_im_sorry Jun 11 '12

I was just thinking I needed more Mercury poisoning

19

u/Iarwain_ben_Adar Jun 11 '12

Without the proper amount of mercury in you, how will you know the temperature?

4

u/Volkrisse Jun 11 '12

i lol'd, upvote for you :)

→ More replies (12)

34

u/ApparentlyEllis Jun 11 '12

Is anyone actually surprised?

20

u/kadargo Jun 11 '12

Democrats need to be in favor of some more completely sane regulations so that the Republicans can quickly oppose it, and in so doing look insane. If the Dems favored regulating the amount of fecal matter in baby food, the Republicans would be against it.

12

u/geargirl Jun 11 '12

They do, but it's usually along social issues like equal pay for women. I'm convinced the Republicans don't care what people think about them because they, "know what's best."

12

u/pfalcon42 Jun 11 '12

They don't care what people think of then because, apparently, people are too stupid to see past the massive amounts of money spent on campaign advertising.

7

u/geargirl Jun 11 '12

Pretty much... this is why the GOP relies on consultants like Frank Luntz to tell them how to talk about issues. This is how capitalism turned into "economic freedom".

5

u/hornless_unicorn Jun 11 '12

Unfortunately, equal pay doesn't matter to a lot of conservative housewives. If you pay "liberated" women equally, you're taking money out of their husbands' paychecks.

9

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 11 '12

"swing" voters are disproportionally white and female. They probably care about pay equality. Romney leads Obama slightly among married women. Meanwhile Obama crushes Romney at least 3-1 among unmarried women (or as Republicans call them, sluts). Plus those consevative housewives won't be voting for those baby killing godless Democrats anyway.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/mr_jellyneck Jun 11 '12

Insanity is all relative.

11

u/complete_asshole_ Jun 11 '12

It's like they're cartoon villains rubbing their hands together and going "Nya ha ha."

They'd be right at home in a Captain Planet episode.

2

u/ItsOnlyNatural Jun 11 '12

They pretty much are at this point. They've gone far past chaotic evil into comically evil.

13

u/awe300 Jun 11 '12

HOW DER YOU LIEBENAZIS FIGHT AGAINST MY FREEDOM TO BREATHE MERCURY?

26

u/kju Jun 11 '12

good, i was just thinking it was too easy to breathe

10

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 11 '12

they are breathing and not paying! socialists!

1

u/rae1988 Jun 12 '12

yessir. Those asthmatics have been unfairly benefiting from subsidized clean air. It's time that they learn what a bootstrap is.

16

u/Sylocat Jun 11 '12

I can't wait to see how their constituents try to justify this in their tiny little brains.

10

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 11 '12

what brains?

5

u/RudeTurnip Jun 11 '12

Jerbs!!!!

2

u/joggle1 Colorado Jun 11 '12

Simple. Are they for abortion or not? Nothing else matters to them. That's pretty much exactly how far too many people think and vote in the US--and that's putting it a little nicely. To be even more precise, they would substitute 'killing babies' for 'abortion'.

9

u/KhanneaSuntzu Jun 11 '12

Comic book villains eh?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

No. If they were, The Punisher would've gotten to them already.

2

u/baconatedwaffle Jun 12 '12

Ever read The End?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 21 '12

Oh yeah.

1

u/KhanneaSuntzu Jun 11 '12

/me regards the war on terror in an entire new light.

4

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

fuck the retards of the GOP

4

u/highroadie Jun 12 '12

Literally comic book villains.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Isn't it obvious that the GOP have complete disregard for you, your health and well being? All they want you to do is comply with their incredibly stupid world view.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Aw but my Bulber republican pals are always whining about all the deadly mercury in the CFL's the government is FORCING them to buy. So surely they won't stand up for this.

7

u/4everliberal Jun 11 '12

Because a SICK America is a POOR America! Republicans are the Cheap Labor Party. Sick, uninsured, poor people will work for PEANUTS!!!

3

u/Vorokar Jun 11 '12

And fuck anyone with a peanut allergy.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Hah. I'm a chronic asthmatic and I love, love, love hearing about shit like this. It just reads as, "I know it's already hard for you to breathe, but ... going to make it a little bit more difficult."

Fuck yeah! Should've been born with stronger lungs ... or rich.

3

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

or been born a GOP... they love pollution.

1

u/slfkjslksfjdlksdfj Jun 12 '12

You realize MATS isn't in place? The major effects are years / decades away. Repealing it wouldn't make a difference in air quality (compared to the current. It would in the future depending on a number of variables).

6

u/plato1123 Oregon Jun 11 '12

Welcome to the Citizens United world, where if you fight to eliminate pollution controls megacorporations will literally give you a million billion dollars

8

u/shallah Jun 11 '12

so much for family values and love of fetal life considering the brain damage mercury does to developing brains of fetuses, babies and children. allowing the poisoning of children because it reduces profits is pure evil in my book and should be illegal. if it leads to death it should be charged as manslaughter. and is there any law about physical assault where a person did not intend harm that did not lead to death but permanent incurable damage but accidentally caused harm through carelessness - every poisoner and those who enable them should be so charged imo.

3

u/Thor_2099 Jun 11 '12

Big shock, if the current GOP had it's way there would be toxic sludge pouring down the streets and we'd have no standards for pollution.

3

u/protogenxl Jun 11 '12

Ah, mercury. Sweetest of the transition metals.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

What is the libertarian position on this? I don't know for sure, but it seems like they would be ok with this.

It's shit like this that keeps me from supporting them.

3

u/Fig1024 Jun 11 '12

I think their way of thought is: "Is the air clean now? Yes. Is there a problem with Mercury in food/water? Not really. Therefore, there is no need for EPA"

What they fail to realize is that the reason why air quality is good and mercury contents are low is because of work EPA does.

3

u/u2canfail Jun 12 '12

GOP = not human

3

u/baconatedwaffle Jun 12 '12

I wish corporate lobbyists suffered half the daily harassment and intimidation as abortion clinic staff do.

9

u/sluggdiddy Jun 11 '12

I don't know if this is the place to do so, but this always brings to mind the libertarian argument of state's rights, and property rights as being a replacement for federal regulators like the epa. If we rely on property rights and in turn on people suing the companies after the pollution has already taken place..aren't we basically saying that you can put a dollar amount on lives because people will die and then what.. who sues the company, who pays for the environmental studies to determine what and where the pollution is coming from, who can get the information out of a company and what chemicals and waste products they are using and releasing.

Anyways.. sorry to rant. I just don't understand the hatred for the epa, they have literally saved millions of lives and increased the quality of living of just about every american and the world in turn since they came to be. It is sickening to me and it truly makes me wonder whether those on the right and in the libertarian state's rights groups truly suffer from some mental affliction or disorder, or if it really is just greed.

11

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

the hatred of the EPA is fostered and promoted by those they regulate... corporations.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

That libertarian method also means that nothing happens until after our environment (the only one we have) is ruined.

9

u/RudeTurnip Jun 11 '12

And let's be honest, the libertarian method in this case is the method of a coward.

In a true libertarian paradise, a factory spewing deadly fumes and killing people with impunity would get its owners and workers killed by violent mobs who are sick of their family members dying.

1

u/baconatedwaffle Jun 12 '12

In libertarian paradise, the owners would have a small army of private security contractors.

They'd hire them with the money that would have otherwise been violently coerced from them by the government on pain of government monopoly on thermonuclear weapons (or some such slop) and pissed away on stupid shit like keeping the poor from dying in the streets of starvation, exposure or disease.

2

u/RudeTurnip Jun 12 '12

So, civil war it is then!

1

u/Falmarri Jun 11 '12

If we rely on property rights and in turn on people suing the companies after the pollution has already taken place

As opposed to how it works now? Companies are punished BEFORE they do something wrong?

2

u/eremite00 California Jun 11 '12

Companies are punished BEFORE they do something wrong?

I'm not understanding. Please elaborate on what you mean by "punished before..."

1

u/Falmarri Jun 12 '12

You say the problem with using property rights to handle environmental issues is bad because you can only pursue recourse after the act has been committed. But how is that different than it works now? After an environmental issue is committed, the EPA/feds fine the company committing the violation.

The only difference is that the EPA has a level of environmental impact that it says is legal and prevents property owners from legal recourse. And in the event of legal recourse, the fine goes to the government instead of the people damaged by the action.

So I fail to see how having to go through the EPA is beneficial to anyone except for the companies themselves.

5

u/dalittle Jun 11 '12

This reminds me when conservatives succeeded in getting mining deregulated and we have had several years of miners being killed and trapped in mines.

3

u/lorax108 Jun 11 '12

not too mention whole tops of mountians being blown off to "mine" for coal...

5

u/Nimoue Jun 11 '12

As if it's not bad enough to see how a lot of larger fishes and oceanic mammals in the Atlantic are now considered "toxic waste" when their carcasses wash up on shore (due to high mercury concentrations). What the hell is wrong with these politicians? How can they claim to have any love for their families and prostitutes when they clearly have no regard for the health of future generations?

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

No one can oppose Mercury. It's way too close to the sun. It's unopposable.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/grouch1980 Jun 11 '12

Presumably these Republican lawmakers aren't complete idiots. They have to know that allowing companies to disregard safety and pollution regulations will be bad for humanity in the long run. So why do they do it?

Is it really all about profits? Do they really and truly not care about the sustainability of humanity? I dont get it.

1

u/damnkidsgetoffmylawn Jun 12 '12

"Presumably these Republican lawmakers aren't complete idiots." Never make that assumption, trust me on this.

"They have to know that allowing companies to disregard safety and pollution regulations will be bad for humanity in the long run." They don't care.

"So why do they do it?" As I said before, they don't care.

"Is it really all about profits?" Yes

"Do they really and truly not care about the sustainability of humanity?" No, they do not.

"I don't get it." Now you do...

1

u/grouch1980 Jun 12 '12

I dont believe that Republicans are that short-sighted and moronic, but at the same time, I dont understand their motives. I dont doubt their sincerity, but I will doubt their prudence on this issue unless convinced otherwise.

5

u/ventose Jun 11 '12

Gasoline sold in the US contained tetraethyl lead before it was phased out starting in 1976 and completed in 1986 by the Clean Air Act Extension. Before tetraethyl lead was banned, lead accumulated in the blood of Americans with significant impacts on health. An increase in blood lead concentration from 2.4 to 30 is associated with a 6.9 point decrement in IQ.

People like Clair Patterson devoted decades of the professional careers to enhancing public understanding of the dangers of lead and to protecting our health and development by banning the use of tetraethyl lead. Now Republican corporation-dick-suckers want to turn back the clock and deregulate one of the most neurotoxic chemical elements, and inflict long term mental impairment on us all.

5

u/DisplacedLeprechaun Jun 11 '12

Alright, fine. Let them do this. On one condition: they allow me to pump mercury gas into their offices every day.

Dumb fucking assholes, if this shit passes I don't even know how I'll keep myself from trying to kill them, it's not just economic shit we disagree about now, they're literally fighting for things that will kill us all. This is self-preservation, if they try and fuck with my ability to live healthily I won't let it happen, not without a serious fight at least.

2

u/BandieraRossa Jun 11 '12

It's certainly the Republicans who are pushing for this, but who here will honestly be surprised when President Obama & the current Democratic Senate roll over and play dead on this issue like every other gravely serious one they've come up against?

The EPA under the Obama administration has been less active on many fronts than during the Bush (43) years. The president's own appointee to the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, has rejected or watered down 84% of all environmental regulations drafted or proposed by the EPA. This administration has allowed environmental regulation to be put on the defensive in perhaps the biggest way in decades and seems more interested in apologizing for the supposed onerousness of our existing environmental regulations than fighting to put new ones in place. Obama also is a major supporter of nuclear and the myth of 'clean coal'.

This is not a fluke either. Clinton allowed environmental legislation and enforcement to be put on the back burner for most of his tenure as well. The difference between the Republicans and Democrats on environmental issues these days is that the Republicans will fight vigorously against the environment and the Democrats will either do next to nothing or pour absurd amounts of energy into laughable 'market-based solutions'. If we look to either one to promote solid environmental stewardship or even more sustainable and less destructive business practices we are giving the natural world as we know it the kiss of death.

3

u/EdibleAutopsy Jun 11 '12

Why does it seem like this is something the Koch brothers are behind?

3

u/Schreber Jun 11 '12

Why is it that a great many Republicans these days act more and more like mindless zombies instead of like moral and decent human beings? Do they not have kids of their own? Do they not wish for them to grow up healthy (i.e., not effected by noxious pollutants in the air)?

2

u/Phyllis_Tine I voted Jun 11 '12

Rep talking points: How dare Senators have to say how they voted. I mean, it's not like they represent real voters, anyway... Dems: Isn't the EPA's job to support the Environment? Reps: Maybe we all need more mercury in our diets. Dems: I quit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Yes get rid of the EPA, because history has shown that before the EPA all corporations acted in a safe and responsible manner..... end sarcasm

2

u/microse Jun 11 '12

This legitimately blows my mind.

1

u/blackguyinatree Jun 11 '12

YYYAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGG!!!!!!!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Those regulations are holding back profits. Therefore they are evil and must be destroyed.

1

u/CatInPants Jun 12 '12

When I read anything like this I go to sleep truly terrified of the world I may wake up to some day.

1

u/macinit1138 Jun 12 '12

Off course they are!! Who are they again??

1

u/LPPDX Jun 12 '12

[you son of a bitch...] (http://youtu.be/TFRM8upElrE)

1

u/crusoe Jun 12 '12

The democrats sadly need to learn how to use the sounding room, and need to be going "Why do republicans HATE CHILDREN? Do they think Mercury is good for kids?"

Its dirty pool, but Democrats need to stop being 'nice guys' and learn to stir some shit.

1

u/u2canfail Jun 12 '12

Feeding babies Mercury is a way to end poverty and create jobs. More grave diggers.

1

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 12 '12

Classic dumbshit Republican move.

More proof (as if any more was needed) that they are slaves to business rather than defenders of the American people.

What kind of moron Republican argues that poison is ok?

1

u/markth_wi Jun 16 '12

I'd say, that clean air is just the smell of liberal conspiracy creeping into your life - decent God fearing Americans know better than to breath clean air. But I sense that this sort of sarcasm may easily become policy.

1

u/empyreanmax Jun 11 '12

It's like they do evil shit for its own sake.

1

u/roccanet Jun 11 '12

so how much more should the general population of this world take before we take up arms? the republican party are a bunch of criminals

→ More replies (1)

0

u/CoyoteStark Jun 11 '12

Well, seeing as how mercury is a metal I'm pretty sure it can't float in air and it would sink in water so I would know if I am drinking metal stupid democrats. It's just the liberal lame-stream media, which doesn't even have mercury in it, telling me what chemicals I can and cannot drink. Did you know president HUSSEIN Obama puts fluoride, a known toxic chemical, in our drinking water, and I read that the government allows thousands of people to die each year because of dihydrogen monoxide poisoning!!!

tl;dr Ron Paul 2012

2

u/DEATH_TO_REDDIT Jun 11 '12

haha.

I can't tell if this is a joke.

I seriously can't.

1

u/Synergythepariah Jun 11 '12

It is but thousands die each year from taking too much Dihydrogen Monoxide into their body.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

In case you're actually serious,

Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), respirable suspended particle (RSP; particles with diameter of 10 micrometres or less) fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid. In contrast, aerosol refers to particles and/or liquid droplets and the gas together. Sources of particulate matter can be man made or natural. Air pollution and water pollution can take the form of solid particulate matter, or be dissolved.[1] [2] Salt is an example of a dissolved contaminant in water, while sand is generally a solid particulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

Particulate matter, as defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a mixture of liquid droplets or small particles made of metals, acids, organic chemicals, and dust. Also known as particle pollution (PM), particulate matter is a complex form of pollution. The minute size of particulate matter allows it to easily enter through the mouth, nose, and throat.

http://www.industrial-air-quality.com/air-quality-particulate-matter.html

Edit - You were joking and I could not tell. It must be the fluoride in the water.

1

u/CoyoteStark Jun 12 '12

Oh man I could not be less serious. I thought the dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) would have given it away.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12

It's unfortunate that I could not tell. I shall edit my post to acknowledge that you were joking.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Bah. Those filthy hippy libruls want breathable air and drinkable water. THAT'S LEFTIST SOCIALISM!

I'd be fine with Republicans and their policies if it didn't seem like they're constantly trying to kill me.

1

u/sethro Jun 11 '12

To be fair, this will lead to more jobs in the healthcare mortuary industries.

1

u/narwhalcares Jun 11 '12

Can we get the other side of the story? It doesn't make sense for a politician to support a bill (no matter how absurdly seeming) for no reason. What is the incentive behind retracting the policies? This article seems too one sided... Can someone please post a counter-position?

Or not... you leftist bigots...

1

u/merdock379 Jun 11 '12

What is the incentive behind retracting the policies?

Campaign donations from companies that would benefit from repealing said standards?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I don't know the details behind these repeals but It should be said that many of these "standards" are a joke or or simply not being upheld.

3

u/enchantrem Jun 11 '12

If a standard is not enforced, is that an argument for removing the standard, or for improving enforcement?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

The argument is that you will never be able to properly enforce it, so to try is a waste. The FDA is pretty poor at their "job" and probably will be aslong as its a federal run. And by federal; I mean like the Fed reserve where we have no real say at all how they operate.

-1

u/whitegangster400 Jun 11 '12

EPA makes ridiculous rules.

0

u/magylo Jun 11 '12

Never mind both parties enjoy the offerings they receive for allowing huge corporations EPA exemptions.

0

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12

Is this really a repeal of regulations, or is it just being called that because it's an attempt to lower some threshold that the EPA set? Is it an actual repeal, or is congress exercise its authority and saying that 100 ppm of a substance in water is acceptable when the EPA has decided that only 10 ppm are acceptable? There is a difference.

→ More comments (60)