• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. limits on coal plant mercury emissions too costly: Trump's EPA

apdst said:
Keep moving the goal posts. You might accomplish something.
Click to expand...
The original post I was responding to was about toxicity per units of energy produced... it's not moving the goal post, it's the actual topic of conversation.

Perhaps proper reading skills would be useful...
 
Nemiroff said:
The original post I was responding to was about toxicity per units of energy produced... it's not moving the goal post, it's the actual topic of conversation.

Perhaps proper reading skills would be useful...
Click to expand...

Right, not volume vs. volume. Maybe your own reading skills need to be checked.
 
apdst said:
I'm pointing out intensity, not volume. Keep moving the goal posts, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah except you aren’t. That “300 times more toxic waste” means amount, not toxicity. Because... grammar.

“Waste that is 300 times more toxic” would be what you are claiming.

Do a google search, apdst. Find us a source that compares overall mortality from various power sources. Try and find a single source that says coal isn’t the worst.
 
apdst said:
Right, not volume vs. volume. Maybe your own reading skills need to be checked.
Click to expand...
And I was talking about toxicity per energy produced... as per the topic. Wtf are you talking about? Do you English?
 
longview said:
A quick look around the internet shows that atmospheric mercury levels have been falling since the 1970's
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/526

and

Since most of the current MATS new standards have not been fully implemented yet and mercury levels were already falling, the new regulations seen
almost unnecessary.
Coal is dirty power and will eventually be phased out because of it's logistical tail, (Hard to move, hard to dispose of the ash), but until
we have something which can serve the same purpose of energy density and on demand duty cycle, it still has value.
Click to expand...

Almost all coal plants in the US have implemented the measure for reducing mercury pollution. You also have a study from Harvard University’s School of Public Health that show that the regulation have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...emissions-too-costly-trumps-epa-idUSKCN1OR1BU

The decline of coal and federal and state regulation have also drastically reduced the number of deaths attributed fine particle pollutants from power plants in the US.

https://www.catf.us/educational/coal-plant-pollution/

While meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.


“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Almost all coal plants in the US have implemented the measure for reducing mercury pollution. You also have a study from Harvard University’s School of Public Health that show that the regulation have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...emissions-too-costly-trumps-epa-idUSKCN1OR1BU

The decline of coal and federal and state regulation have also drastically reduced the number of deaths attributed fine particle pollutants from power plants in the US.

https://www.catf.us/educational/coal-plant-pollution/

While meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.


“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
Click to expand...
What you are missing is that atmospheric mercury have been falling already. under the older requirements.
Making them even tighter would not help much, and will limit a source of energy we still need for a while.
The current alternates are currently not capable of supplying the on demand type of electricity our society requires.
We can reduce demand with conservation, and other energy saving measures, but that does not change the basic requirement
that when some appliance comes on, the electricity needs to be there.
 
Nemiroff said:
We should bring back leaded fuel and paint too. What's mental retardation and public health compared to more money for already insanely profitable businesses... those poor poor insanely profitable businesses.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that it coult exponentially increase the number of Trump supporters.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...emissions-too-costly-trumps-epa-idUSKCN1OR1BU

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Friday said limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants were unnecessary as they were too costly, sparking an outcry from environmentalists who feared the next step would be looser rules favoring the coal industry at the expense of public health.

Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury, which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.
=================================================
What are some birth defects & neurotoxicity downwind of hese plants worth when there are $$$ on the bottom line to be concerned about? The welfare of the people becomes secondary to the recommendations of some bean counters with their spreadsheet programs.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. Because we can't precisely quantify the financial savings associated with not causing 11,000 premature deaths due to lung and heart disease, or the precise financial costs associated with poisoning babies' brains with mercury, we should therefore allow coal-fired power plants to pour more dangerous pollutants into the environment? And we're no longer allowed to consider the indirect costs of pollution, even if everyone knows they exist?

Trump is certainly making America *something* again. Whatever it is, it ain't "great."

Let's be clear: this Trump admin ruling in effect says that it's OK if pollution kills people as long as the direct monetary cost is small. It also says that you can't count side benefits of a policy -- i.e., if mercury rules also reduce other pollution.

Adopting this rule would bring us a long way back to America as it was before the EPA. If you think that's what voters want, I've got an almost invisible bridge you might want to buy.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
US like my many other countries still after more than 50 years of laws, regulations, lawsuits, and debates lack a long term storage solution for nuclear waste. So in the meantime you have a lot of nuclear waste stored close to local communities.

https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/Radioactive-waste-stranded-US-shifts/96/web/2018/08

John Oliver have also done a segment about nuclear waste.

John Oliver Targets Nuclear Waste on '''Last Week Tonight''' | Time

Click to expand...


Nuclear waste is this bizarre situation where dealing with the waste is actually fairly simple. It’s just that we ....don’t deal with it at all.
 
longview said:
What you are missing is that atmospheric mercury have been falling already. under the older requirements.
Making them even tighter would not help much, and will limit a source of energy we still need for a while.
The current alternates are currently not capable of supplying the on demand type of electricity our society requires.
We can reduce demand with conservation, and other energy saving measures, but that does not change the basic requirement
that when some appliance comes on, the electricity needs to be there.
Click to expand...

The measure have had a significant effect.

"These reductions reflect the success of the efforts of advocates to win a variety of federal and state regulatory and enforcement initiatives that CATF has supported, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (MATS) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the active enforcement of existing regulations such as New Source Review (NSR), the successes of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” Campaign in winning the retirement of coal units, and the falling prices of cleaner energy sources such as renewables and natural gas. Since 2004, these measures have dropped Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) pollution by 80% and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) by 70%, the leading components of fine particle pollution. This was achieved through the near doubling of the number of scrubbers (the technology used for reducing SO2 pollution) installed at power plants and additional retirements of coal capacity. The MATS rule alone is saving nearly 11,000 lives per year. Yet, despite this progress, the Trump Administration, portions of the coal industry and several recalcitrant states persist in trying to overturn the MATS rule in court and reverse this life-saving trend."

https://www.catf.us/educational/coal-plant-pollution/
 
Deuce said:
Nuclear waste is this bizarre situation where dealing with the waste is actually fairly simple. It’s just that we ....don’t deal with it at all.
Click to expand...

Eormous amount of money have been spent on developing nuclear power. For example that almost half of the American federal government’s energy research and development spending since 1948 have gone to nuclear power. Still there are no solution for storing the waste in US and many other countries.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproje...0.1#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=Fr
 
Bergslagstroll said:
The measure have had a significant effect.

"These reductions reflect the success of the efforts of advocates to win a variety of federal and state regulatory and enforcement initiatives that CATF has supported, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (MATS) and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the active enforcement of existing regulations such as New Source Review (NSR), the successes of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” Campaign in winning the retirement of coal units, and the falling prices of cleaner energy sources such as renewables and natural gas. Since 2004, these measures have dropped Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) pollution by 80% and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) by 70%, the leading components of fine particle pollution. This was achieved through the near doubling of the number of scrubbers (the technology used for reducing SO2 pollution) installed at power plants and additional retirements of coal capacity. The MATS rule alone is saving nearly 11,000 lives per year. Yet, despite this progress, the Trump Administration, portions of the coal industry and several recalcitrant states persist in trying to overturn the MATS rule in court and reverse this life-saving trend."

https://www.catf.us/educational/coal-plant-pollution/
Click to expand...

I do not think you know what you are talking about, it looks like the Obama changes were to how often the samples were taken,
( the number of samples was to increase)and they have backed off on this.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-04-06/pdf/2017-06884.pdf
The mercury emission level has not changed as far as I can see.
 
dcsports said:
Not at all. It's not Trump, but the agency itself, as well as those familiar with the industry.
Click to expand...

The coal barons are now running Trumps EPA. Wheeler was a lobbyist for Murray Energy Corporation, which proudly bills itself as the largest coal mining company in America.
 
Nemiroff said:
And I was talking about toxicity per energy produced... as per the topic. Wtf are you talking about? Do you English?
Click to expand...

What you have to remember is that "apdst" is one of America's foremost proponents of "Humpty-Dumptyism".
 
Rogue Valley said:
The coal barons are now running Trumps EPA. Wheeler was a lobbyist for Murray Energy Corporation, which proudly bills itself as the largest coal mining company in America.
Click to expand...

Using the term 'coal barons' is silly.

Since balancing the reduction in energy from coal is a big issue now, it's probably good to have someone who understands the industry.
 
dcsports said:
Using the term 'coal barons' is silly.

Since balancing the reduction in energy from coal is a big issue now, it's probably good to have someone who understands the industry.
Click to expand...
Scientists and army engineers (previous heads of the epa) fully understood the issues. What your proposing is to put in people with their own interests in mind instead of looking out for the health of the people and planet.

I posted a link earlier to the biggest coal company doubling their profits in the latest earnings report. Those regulations are totally destroying them.... please wake up
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am saying that the Obama rule was likely a bad idea and yet another lie, I am saying that the purpose was likely not "SAFETY!" as was claimed but was using the law to drive up the price of a product that government wanted to fail at the marketplace.

I do not approve of either coercion or lies from power.



BTW: That second link of mine is of superior quality.
Click to expand...
I'm generally of the opinion that if there are safety rules and regulations, they probably aren't stringent enough.

Of course each case needs examined on it's own, but I've heard/read so many examples of "this happened because the safety regulations were relaxed".
Hell, it's why we had the recession.


If the rules allow it, corporations will harm the environment and those living in it to increase profits.
Not because they're evil, but because they're amoral, and the highest priority is increasing profits.

Now, of course that depends to a degree on the specific operating code of a given corporation, but generally speaking it applies.


It's because of this that some persons, with some justification, think poorly of capitalism.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
I'm generally of the opinion that if there are safety rules and regulations, they probably aren't stringent enough.

Of course each case needs examined on it's own, but I've heard/read so many examples of "this happened because the safety regulations were relaxed".
Hell, it's why we had the recession.


If the rules allow it, corporations will harm the environment and those living in it to increase profits.
Not because they're evil, but because they're amoral, and the highest priority is increasing profits.

Now, of course that depends to a degree on the specific operating code of a given corporation, but generally speaking it applies.


It's because of this that some persons, with some justification, think poorly of capitalism.
Click to expand...

The "milk" companies used to water the milk and then add chalk to make it look white again.

Why?

Because it increased profits.

Since the amount of chalk that people ended up ingesting was very small it probably wasn't harmful and the cost of buying the additional milk to make up for the volume of water added is probably higher than adding chalk and water to the milk. So what if a few extra people died as a result of that adulteration of the milk, the number of lives saved probably didn't make up for the additional cost to the "milk" companies.

That means that we should allow the "milk" companies to add as much water and chalk to the stuff that they sell as they want and get rid of this "useless regulation".

Right?

I mean the logic is identical and you don't have to drink the "milk" any more than you have to breathe the polluted air from a coal fired boiler.

Right?
 
Last edited:
longview said:
I do not think you know what you are talking about, it looks like the Obama changes were to how often the samples were taken,
( the number of samples was to increase)and they have backed off on this.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-04-06/pdf/2017-06884.pdf
The mercury emission level has not changed as far as I can see.
Click to expand...


Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) was implemented in 2012 to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants generated by coal and oil-fired power plants across the U.S. There Harvard University’s School of Public Health have showed that the regulation have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health. Clean Air Task Force also states that MATS have saved nearly 11,000 lives per year.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The "milk" companies used to water the milk and then add chalk to make it look white again.

Why?

Because it increased profits.

Since the amount of chalk that people ended up ingesting was very small it probably wasn't harmful and the cost of buying the additional milk to make up for the volume of water added is probably higher than adding chalk and water to the milk. So what if a few extra people died as a result of that adulteration of the milk, the number of lives saved probably didn't make up for the additional cost to the "milk" companies.

That means that we should allow the "milk" companies to add as much water and chalk to the stuff that they sell as they want and get rid of this "useless regulation".

Right?

I mean the logic is identical and you don't have to drink the "milk" any more than you have to breathe the polluted air from a coal fired boiler.

Right?
Click to expand...

John Olivier have an intersting episode about lead paint. There US let the "free market" decided and allowed lead paint decades after it was banned in other countries leading to use societal costs.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune

 
Bergslagstroll said:
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) was implemented in 2012 to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants generated by coal and oil-fired power plants across the U.S. There Harvard University’s School of Public Health have showed that the regulation have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health. Clean Air Task Force also states that MATS have saved nearly 11,000 lives per year.
Click to expand...

So then it should be easy to show what the levels of mercury emissions were change to and from in 2012.
Atmospheric mercury level were already falling before 2012.
You keep saying that these changes have saved lives,
and all I have found is the new requirements changes the sampling period, not the emission requirements.
Tell me how has changing the sampling period saved lives?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
John Olivier have an intersting episode about lead paint. There US let the "free market" decided and allowed lead paint decades after it was banned in other countries leading to use societal costs.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune

Click to expand...


Allowing the use of lead makes for better paint.

Why should American companies have an artificial restriction be placed on their search to produce the best paint possible.

Paint is NOT a product that is sold as "life extending" so who cares if the improper use of paint could be harmful in one or two cases.

Who in their right mind would eat paint anyways?

[NOTE - All the above crafted in strict conformance to the dictates of "The Government IS TOO BIG and there are TOO MANY regulations" movement style guide and any lack of rationality is NOT the fault of the author.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom