As they apply to coal, the multitude of environmental
laws passed in the 1970’s were meant to strike a reasonable balance
between producing coal and protecting human health and the environment.
These laws were meant to create a safety net of minimum standards below
which industry could not go. With these standards fully enforced, the
total cost to mining and energy industries for maintaining these standards
would be reflected in the market price of energy. The desire for and
pursuit of a coal-based energy would then be determined by the true cost
of coal and we, as consumers, would pay the cost of acceptable, even
sustainable, mining and burning practices.
With the passage of the Clean Water Act,
Clean Air Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and other laws in the 1970’s,
things got better, at least for a while. The blatant abuses of rip-and-run
mining eased and the public outcry decreased. Congress and the country
were somewhat comforted.
However, as people were lulled into complacency, industry was busy refining
its image. High power public relations efforts were changing the startling
image of Appalachian coalfields from devastated lands, downtrodden miners
and impoverished communities to green rolling reclaimed hills. While
the façade got prettier
and the words were fine-tuned, industry devised new mining practices and employed
new technologies far more destructive than anyone dreamed possible when the legislation
of the 1970’s were enacted.
At the same time the roots of coal’s political influence grew longer
and stronger. Coal companies leaped into political campaign financing,
and otherwise influenced the tenor, tone and texture of regulations.
With control of the political process King Coal orchestrated decreases
in funding for enforcement agencies and shifted primacy and power away
from the federal government to the coalfield states, where industry has
even more direct control and influence.
With its now deep seated political influence, new “improved” technologies
and the illusion of “cheap” energy, King Coal went to work on the
environmental laws, twisting regulations to their wishes and discouraging enforcement.
In one of the more egregious policy-making decisions coming out of the EPA
in recent years, the Agency changed the definition of “fill” under
the Clean Water Act to allow mining companies to dump tons of mining debris
into valley streams without being in violation of the Act. The federal Office
of Surface Mining has proposed a change to the Buffer Zone Rule that would
legalize the filling of hundreds more miles of valuable headwater streams.
And just last year, EPA enacted a rule that allows coal-fired plants to continue
to spew tons of mercury into our air and waterways for decades to come.
|
|
Last fall, Waterkeeper magazine focused on the impacts
of mercury emissions from the nation’s 1,100 coal-fired power plants,
including EPA’s estimate that 630,000 children are born each year
in the U.S. with unsafe levels of mercury in their blood from their mother’s
consumption of mercury contaminated fish.
One of the Bush Administration’s favorite arguments against effectively
controlling power plant mercury emissions is that much of the mercury in our
waterways comes from sources outside the U.S. (nearly 1,500 tons of mercury are
released globally each year.) EPA claims that U.S. emissions account for only
three percent of the manmade sources worldwide, and that Asia emits 860 tons,
while North America accounts for only 105 tons per year.
But a closer examination of the issue speaks volumes about how disingenuous this
Administration truly is when it comes to stopping mercury pollution. Last February,
mercury was on the table for discussion when the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) met for its 23rd Governing Council in Nairobi, Kenya. During committee
meetings, the European Union called for a legally binding agreement that would
force global reductions in mercury emissions. Asian countries were largely on
board. But U.S. representatives opposed any mandatory reduction standards, instead
calling for a voluntary partnership program – in other words, an unenforceable
agreement that would not burden their industry friends back home. So while the
EPA is quick to deflect blame to other parts of the world, the U.S. government
will not embrace international regulation of mercury emissions.
As a result of U.S. opposition, internationally binding
reductions on mercury emissions failed. The U.S. response? If you don’t
want to fix it, throw money at it and hope it will go away. Instead of
endorsing any meaningful mercury reduction agreement, Bush officials pledged
$1 million to the UNEP mercury program. So much for international leadership.
|
|