Are ‘Clean’ acts too expensive? How much health will you sacrifice?

Opinion

Discussion

January 11, 2012

Are ‘Clean’ acts too expensive? How much health will you sacrifice?

Don Skinner Meadville Tribune The Meadville Tribune Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:24 PM EST

MEADVILLE — About 45 years ago, when we-the-people experienced what may fairly be called our “great environmental awakening,” a number of new laws and regulations were adopted. Many shared a common purpose: to protect the environment from additional degradation, and thereby protect the health and welfare of all living things — including us.

Of those new laws, three were of overriding importance: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. It came as no surprise (nor should it have) that those three — because of the sweeping scope of their provisions — have roused the greatest controversy and have most often been subject to attack from corporate bodies who sought to undermine their provisions. There is no form of regulation, it would appear, so universally acceptable that it doesn’t gore someone’s ox; and the big three environmental laws have riled up as many as any you’d care to mention. At one time or another, one corporate interest or another has sought to gut just about every provision of all three.

Gratefully, such efforts have proven mostly to be a losing battle. The value of these statutes is such that they continue to enjoy as strong public support as any law in our history — and more than most. Years of public opinion polls have demonstrated public support that often ranges to 80 per cent or higher. (Name a single public official — or legislative body — that enjoys anything near so much approval!) As a result, virtually every attempt to weaken them by special interest amendment has failed either in the halls of Congress or the chambers of the federal courts.

So it may come as a surprise to some (and especially those corporate interests eager to undermine them) that environmental organizations also believe that the laws could benefit by improvement and expansion. The changes we seek, however, are on the side of expanding and strengthening their provisions. And no change has been more important from a public health viewpoint than the current promulgation of rules by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to limit the discharge of mercury from coal-fired electric power generating plants.

Of all issues, this ought to be a no-brainer. The toxic impact of mercury, especially as it affects the physical and mental development of young children, has been medically understood and described for generations. There is no question — none — regarding its destructive potential. Even minuscule amounts of mercury in the blood of a pregnant mother can permanently reduce the IQ of her child, prevent the brain from developing properly, and damage the kidneys and the liver. The science on these effects is neither new nor controversial.

The only question is why American utilities have been permitted to spew the stuff into the atmosphere for all those generations, most often into urban areas where, given socio-economic housing patterns typical of American cities, its impact has fallen most heavily on the urban poor.

And yet (should we be surprised?) the utilities that own and operate those plants, their profit margins continuing to be augmented by the ongoing practice of using the public’s air as a sewer, without fee or penalty, are fighting the promulgation of the proposed new rules. It will be too expensive, they contend. The cost of retrofitting old plants to meet the new standards, or building new plants that meet them, will drive the cost of electricity sky high. The economy can’t afford it.

The argument is less than compelling. It has been used to fight every regulation regarding electrical power plant pollution for the last half-century, and yet we still manage to afford electrical power. Indeed, the snail’s pace at which private citizens adopt conservation measures that would reduce our outlay for electricity overnight makes a chimera of any argument that rising electricity costs are breaking our budgetary backs.

However, let’s assume — for the sake of argument — that new constraints on mercury pollution will increase our electricity bills. Further, let’s assume that those elevated costs are sufficient to justify overruling the EPA. What, exactly, is it that we are arguing? That the degradation of human health (not to mention all the other damage that mercury does to every other living thing that shares our planet) is an acceptable price to pay to avoid homeowner inconvenience? Put another way, how many children growing up with compromised mental ability constitute an acceptable price to pay for each one-cent reduction in the per-killowatt-hour price of electricity? One? A dozen?

The issue is no longer whether some kids should be sacrificed for the benefit of utility convenience, but only how many. All we’re really doing at this point is haggling over the price. Is this how we define the moral high ground?

Can you imagine any loving parent saying, “Sure, go ahead. I’d rather have the government look out for the interests of outdated, dirty coal power plants than help keep my child safe?”

If this issue moves you, there is an immediate opportunity to do something about it. Contact our senators and representatives and let them know — beyond any doubt — how you feel about it, and what you expect of them.

Skinner, a native of Meadville, is chaplain emeritus of Allegheny College and a longtime environmentalist. He can be contacted at dskinner@zoominternet.net.

Text Only

Opinion

WALK TALK: Vegas, UFC: Here we come
1 I know the saying is "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," but I'm going to forgo that adage next week. After all, part of my week-long trip with three friends to Las Vegas includes my first in-person viewing of an Ultimate Fighting Championship card. I'll give you all the juicy and exciting details from UFC 160 in next week's column.

May 22, 2013
Seizure of phone records will hurt your right to know what government is up to
Distrust of government secrecy has been elevated to an exceptional level with the disclosure the Justice Department covertly examined two months of Associated Press phone records to determine who leaked details to the AP about a foiled terrorist plot.

May 16, 2013
WALK TALK: LeBron’s near unanimous MVP and another hoax
1 LeBron James became the first player since 2000 to receive every vote but one while being named the NBA’s Most Valuable Player. It was his fourth MVP award, and it surely won’t be his last. The one thing I question in all this is the person who didn’t vote for James — The Boston Globe’s Gary Washburn. As I said here in February — back when he was scoring 30 points and making 60 percent of his shots every night — his winning the award was a lock. Washburn’s excuse is that the Knicks’ Carmelo Anthony “meant more to this team” this season. He stopped LJ from becoming the first ever unanimous NBA MVP.

May 9, 2013
Spring brings back motorcycle memory from the old country
Traditionally, the sign of spring is manifested by the return of robins. But I know spring is really here when a roaring motorcycle goes by my house and my son’s shop gets full again with motorcycles that need serviced. Immediately, memories from my youth come back to me, and the following is one of those memories.

May 7, 2013
WALK TALK: OKC’s fate rests in Durant’s jump shot
1 The Western Conference favorite took a big hit a few days ago when Oklahoma City point guard Russell Westbrook injured his knee and will be out until next season. It’s a huge blow for the Thunder, who lose their second-best player and offensive catalyst. So what does it mean? It means that Kevin Durant is going to have to score at least 40 every night if OKC has any hope of even getting out of the second round this season. We’ll truly see how great Durant is over the next few weeks now that his right-hand man is out.

May 1, 2013
By foot or by cycle, get moving
It’s been a little more than a year since my SUV died and I promised to report the results as I spent the next 12 months commuting on twos — by foot or by motorcycle.

April 27, 2013
Burning tires is a very bad deal for western Pennsylvania
Litigation is before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on the Department of Environmental Protection’s air quality plan for the proposed Crawford Renewable Energy tire-burning plant in Crawford County. The plant is a terrible deal for the Meadville area, as it will emit far more harmful pollutants than its promoters have projected.

April 25, 2013
WALK TALK: Quarterbacks are still draft focus without elite choices
1 The NFL draft is in just two days, and there are many reports that not one quarterback will be taken until the second round for the first time since 1996. So the draft’s focus has to be on other players/positions, right? Nope. If anything, the lack of an elite QB only heightens the interest in when and who of the signal callers will be chosen first.

April 23, 2013
We all mourn the loss of Martin Richard — a martyr for freedom
We don’t know whether 8-year-old Martin Richard was killed by a domestic or foreign terrorist at the Boston Marathon. But all Americans tremble in our hearts when we think of the agony experienced by his family, which also endures serious injuries to his 6-year-old sister and his mother.

April 17, 2013
WALK TALK: A plunking will happen if you crowd the plate
1 The count is 3-2 on San Diego’s Carlos Quentin. A runner is on first during a 2-1 game in the sixth inning and Dodgers starter Zach Greinke is on the mound. Next thing we know, Greinke is checking to see if his collarbone is in its original place after accidentally hitting Quentin, who charged the mound seconds later. I cannot be any more on the side of Greinke and L.A. manager Don Mattingly, who said that Quentin should be suspended for as long as Greinke is injured. Quentin will be back in the lineup after eight days. It may be eight weeks until Greinke returns.

April 16, 2013
More Opinion Headlines

Opinion

Search Results

Discussion

Are ‘Clean’ acts too expensive? How much health will you sacrifice?

Site Map

Contact Us