Mercury Emissions

With the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case that relates to the new EPA Mercury Rule, we can see the dichotomy between those that want to hold onto the past, and those that want to move into the future. What is fascinating to me is the fact that the primary argument against reducing mercury emissions is, are you ready? Money…..

green-lungsYes, the premise of the case appears to be that to comply with the new Mercury rules, power companies in the Midwest would need to install expensive pollution control systems…and, yes, that will cost money. Thus, they argue that we should continue to breathe polluted air so that people can have electricity that is subsidized by all of us…not in dollars, but with our health.

In New Jersey, Public Service has made a large investment in controlling Mercury emissions…and yes, it has cost $3 billion…and yes, we have high electric rates….but what is our health worth?

How about controlling our electric rates by simply becoming more efficient?

Read the full article:
U.S. high court to hear challenge to rule that may affect N.J. air quality

Share

One comment

  1. Jeffrey says:

    Wayne, I remember as a kid the chick-little sky is falling with mercury in tuna fish. What ever happened to that? Anyway mercury exists in the natural environment. Every time a volcano erupts tons of heavy metals are spewed into the atmosphere.

    Not to mention the squiggly fluorescent light bulbs and all fluorescent light bulbs that the environmental movement has been force feeding us over the years.

    Coal is an important energy resource and crucial to the economic and societal well being of this country. Let’s not turn it into a boogey-man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *