By Robert Ferguson

The issue of mercury emissions has been getting lots of attention as many mothers have been scared by media reports about the dangers of pregnant women consuming too much mercury-laden fish, and some in the environmental community have continued to criticize the Bush Administration for failing to do more to control these emissions. While severe regulation of mercury emissions from U.S. power plants may be justified by politics and/or ideology, it is not at all justified by the present science.

This is clearly seen when presented by the currently available facts of the science and economics relative to the debate over mercury regulations.

• U.S. coal-powered plants (usually identified as the chief culprit of man-made emissions) account for less than 1% of the annual world emissions budget, and continue to decline via co-benefits. Any U.S. reductions forced by costly rules will be quickly made up (in as little as one year) by emissions growth in other nations. U.S. regulation is therefore irrelevant to reducing worldwide anthropogenic contributions.

• The cycling of mercury – from both man-made (45%) and natural (55%) sources – in the natural environment clearly demonstrates that it is scientifically impossible to obtain any of the claimed health benefits of cutting U.S. emissions, which are dubious at best. Present U.S. fish consumption levels are not harmful by a sizable margin of safety; not a single mother or infant is at risk.

• False claims and interest-driven alarmism are already inflicting great harm upon public health.

Therefore, it should be understood by all parties that current arguments over U.S. regulatory trajectories are strictly political, providing zero health benefits because they will have no measurable impact whatsoever on world mercury emissions budgets or methyl mercury concentrations in ocean fish. In other words, regardless of what mercury emissions controls are put in place, even eliminating all mercury emissions from U.S. plants (zero emissions), the most recent science suggests it will leave unchanged both the present and historic mercury levels in world oceans and methyl mercury levels in ocean fish.

As it turns out, the primary drivers in the push for mercury regulations are wealthy
environmental organizations who’s own literature reveals that their primary interest in achieving a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule is to be seen as players, enhancing their fundraising and political advantages. It does not seem a primary concern as to how consequential is the outcomes of the regulations themselves.

While achieving zero claimed health benefits, the scientifically baseless fears generated about current levels of U.S. fish consumption, combined with the negative economic impacts of political regulation, are almost guaranteed to result in major economic harm and epidemic health dis-benefits, falling disproportionately on minorities, women, children, the poor and elderly.