The report debunks industry claims that the regulations will wreak havoc on the utility sector.

image courtesy lex18.com

The technology to comply with the new regulations is readily available, and  60% of US power plants have already installed the technology necessary to comply with the rules.

Though a few coal-heavy utilities have asked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to push back the deadline, claiming that the rules do not give them enough time to install all the required pollution controls, the EPA representative said it would not make sense to delay the rules across the board for those utilities who failed to heed notice that these pollution reductions would soon be required.

As the utility representative noted, there are leaders and followers among utilities. He echoed that the EPA should not delay important health benefits for those few utilities that were not proactive in updating pollution controls.

After all, installing technology to make sure power plants operate more safely is part of the evolution of a plant, just like getting your grandmother’s thirty-year-old car inspected and fixed is part of owning and operating a car.

In this case, the stakes are much higher than having a noisy muffler. The EPA found that the proposed pollution reductions will have annual benefits that include:

… [up to] 17,000 fewer premature mortalities, 4,300 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis, 10,000 fewer non-fatal heart attacks, 12,000 fewer hospitalizations (for respiratory and cardiovascular disease combined), 4.9 million fewer days of restricted activity due to respiratory illness and approximately 830,000 fewer lost work days.

We also estimate substantial health improvements for children in the form of 110,000 fewer asthma attacks, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions due to asthma, 10,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis, and approximately 210,000 fewer cases of upper and lower respiratory illness.[2]

When 17,000 lives can be saved each year by reducing the amount of mercury, arsenic, and toxic air pollution spewing out of power plants, there is no excuse to continue with business as usual. As one panelist  said “the health of our families can no longer be a hotbed partisan issue.” I couldn’t agree more.

Take action here and tell the EPA that you want the strongest protections possible against dangerous air.

Spanish moss cloaks a live oak tree— a familiar site in the lowcountry. (Photo Credit: Roxanne Turpen)

South Carolina may not be the first place that comes to mind when thinking about conservation, but the stakes are huge in the Palmetto State: experts believe the Southeast will be hardest hit by the climate-driven extreme weather events expected over the next two decades.

Extreme weather is part of being a Southerner — I remember evacuating Charleston several times during hurricane season over the course of my childhood. However, the past few years have brought new meaning to our concept of extreme weather.

This spring we saw the deadliest and most destructive tornado season ever recorded. At this very moment, Floridians are fighting some of the largest wildfires they have known—just yesterday the governor announced a state of emergency as 310 active fires blaze through the state. Meanwhile, a deepening drought plagues Texas and other southern states, as it has for 8 of the past 12 years.

Thankfully, today’s announcement from former Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC) may be the start of a new direction for my home state and region in terms of addressing global warming.  This fall, he will launch a national conservative coalition made up of fellow Republicans who recognize that human emissions are the leading contributor to global warming and that we should be taking steps to stop it.

“Conservatives typically are people who try to be cognizant of risk and move to minimize risk. To be told of risk and to consciously decide to disregard it seems to be the opposite of conservative. What I hope to do is be a part of an effort that calls conservatives to return to conservatism and to turn away from the populist rejection of science,” Inglis said.

Adam Kolton, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s National Advocacy Center, weighed in.

“Former Congressman Inglis’ effort is refreshing. The fact is that there are millions of conservation-minded Republicans who believe in good science and most importantly who believe in doing what’s right for the next generation – for their kids and grandkids. There is a silent majority in the Republican Party who favor a safer, cleaner, more secure energy future based on sound science. We hope this new effort will be a start at making their voices heard.”

Already several congressmen have voiced their interest in joining and shaping a strong coalition to confront global warming, and for good reason: Inglis pointed out that any further delay of action on climate change will only hurt the United States’ chance of leading the global green economy. “We may just press the pause button for the next few years, but China is pressing the fast forward button,” he said.

It’s been said that the pace of the South is slow, but there’s no time to spare to confront climate change and embrace a clean energy future. Bob Inglis’ latest effort to advance conservative values and a conservation ethic has inspired this South Carolinian to look forward to better days ahead.

I’m not ashamed to admit it: when I was a child, I ate paint chips.  Something about the sweetness of the lead and the crunchiness of the chip proved irresistible as I worked to unsheathe my molars from my gums.

(via Flickr, Harpersbizarre)

Now before you go on to presume what this has done to my IQ, I want to say that I wasn’t the only one in Generation X to fall victim to the toxic (yet tasty) snack. After all, the majority of paint contained lead until the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead as a paint additive in 1977. While lead improved drying time and increased sheen and durability, it also introduced a potent neurotoxin into households, causing nervous system damage, stunted growth, and delayed development.

This is what regulation is for. When a known toxic substance is threatening the lives of children in their own homes, we need to demand that our government do something to stop it. Just as the Consumer Product Safety banned lead in paint to protect public health, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally working to develop similar common-sense regulations to limit the amount of arsenic, lead, and mercury billowing out of smokestacks, 20 years after such regulations were first proposed.

You don’t need me to tell you that mercury isn’t exactly something you want to inhale—we’ve all known that for decades.

But, for the record, mercury is a highly potent neurotoxin that adversely affects the function and development of the central nervous system. I’m talking problems with language, memory, attention, and visual skills, not to mention aggravated asthma, heart attacks, chronic bronchitis and premature death.

The 600 coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury contamination in the U.S., responsible for approximately 50% of human-caused mercury emissions.  Other sources include waste incinerators that burn mercury-containing products and chlorine manufacturers. However, unlike these sources, power plants are not currently required to limit their mercury pollution.

The EPA’s proposed mercury and air pollution standards would reduce mercury and toxic air emissions from power plants by more than 90%. This will help prevent thousands of cases of premature death, asthma attacks and emergency room visits, especially in our most vulnerable communities.

It is crucial that the EPA enforce the law and fulfill its obligation to protect public health from these dangerous pollutants. The pollution control technology is readily available, and the EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to reduce toxic pollutants, we will receive $5-$13 in health benefits.

In the face of mounting industry pressure to weaken these limitations, the EPA needs to know that they have the support of US citizens as they move forward to set stringent standards that will protect public health from preventable mercury pollution.

So act now— tell the EPA that you support tighter limits on toxic air pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and dioxin released from coal- and oil-fired power plants.

After all, isn’t it about time?

courtesy urbanchristiannews.com

Mercury and other dangerous air pollutants have long been connected to extreme health problems such as brain damage, learning disabilities, birth defects, heart disease, cancer and even premature death.

As many as 1 in 6 American women of childbearing age have enough mercury in their bodies to put a baby at risk for mercury poisoning.

You may wonder, how can this be so?

We’ve known for decades that mercury is devastating to our health. However, coal plants spew mercury and other toxics (like arsenic) from their smokestacks every day and this is putting us all at risk—not only are the pollutants affecting our air quality, but mercury from these plants accumulates in local waterways and poses a direct risk to people when they eat contaminated fish.

We finally have a chance to end the cycle.

Today the Environmental Protection Agency announced the proposed rule on Mercury & Air Toxics Standards which is aimed at protecting public health.

The new rules will:

• Cut harmful emissions of mercury as well as arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases
• Prevent as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year
• Benefit children’s health by preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis among children each year
• Avoid more than 12,000 emergency room and hospital visits and 850,000 missed work days due to illness

Our nation’s biggest polluters want to block these standards, but if enacted, the EPA’s safeguards could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year!

It has never been more important to make our voices heard. The EPA needs to hear from all of us telling them that we support life-saving protections that can keep mercury pollution out of our communities.

Here are all the ways to take action and tell the EPA to enact strong air toxics standards:

1. E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2009-0234.
2. Regulations.gov website (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
3. EPA Air and Radiation Docket Web Site ( http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
4. Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 .
5. Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. (Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holiday), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.)
7. Through this online Action Alert.

The EPA needs to hear from all of us telling them that we support life saving protections that can keep mercury pollution out of our communities.