THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIV, Issue # 22, February 3, 2012
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
AGENDA-DRIVEN "SCIENCE" AT THE EPA:
Newly Proposed Air Pollution Rules Impose
Exhorbitant Costs for Illusory Health Benefits
By Dr. Willie Soon & Paul K. Driessen
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S MOST RECENTLY RELEASED "NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS": THE
EPA'S REAL OBJECTIVE IN SEEKING TO IMPOSE THESE RULES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: TO ASSERT THE AGENCY'S AUTHORITY OVER
EVER-INCREASING SEGMENTS OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY; REINTERPRET MEDICAL & SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO FIT THE EPA'S STATIST REGULATORY AGENDA;
& REPLACE COAL-FIRED & OIL-FIRED ELECTRICAL POWER PLANTS WITH COSTLY & UNRELIABLE RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. WHAT THE AMERICAN VOTERS,
ELECTED OFFICIALS, & COURTS NEED TO DO: CHALLENGE THE RADICAL, UNELECTED, & UNACCOUNTABLE BUREAUCRATS IN THE EPA; DEMAND AN END
TO EPA'S DISTORTION OF SCIENCE & REALITY; & REVERSE THE FLAWED RULES OF THE EPA & OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.
FULL STORY:
In December, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency released new Clean Air Act “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” Once again,
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson touted the supposedly huge benefits of controlling emissions of mercury (Hg) and other air toxics from U.S. coal-fired and
oil-fired power plants (or electric generating units, EGUs).
The people of Idaho may welcome this new rule, since EPA’s miraculous modeling machine has promised to prevent “six premature deaths” and create “up to
$54 million” in health benefits by 2016 – even though not one coal-fired EGU in Idaho fits the EPA’s final rules. Even the District of Columbia, which has only
one oil-fired unit, will somehow, magically realize “up to $120 million” in health benefits, presumably from new restrictions on coal-fired units in Maryland or
Virginia.
The average U.S. citizen, however, can be excused for no longer being willing to be penalized by EPA – the Extreme Punishment Authority – for such minimal,
imaginary, and manufactured benefits.
In fact, the final rule may be the most expensive one ever devised by EPA. And yet, even EPA admits, the alleged “hazards to public health” from mercury and
non-mercury emissions from American EGUs are “anticipated to remain after imposition” of the new regulations.
As to benefits, EPA computer models claim Hg emission cuts will reduce average per person “avoided IQ loss” by an undetectable “0.00209 IQ points,” with
estimated “total nationwide benefits” of $500,000 to $6.1 million by 2016. For the electric utility sector, says EPA, net job creation from the rules will be “not
statistically different from zero” and could be between minus 15,000 and plus 30,000 jobs.
In fact, the new regulations will likely eliminate tens of thousands of jobs annually, especially in energy-intensive industries that rely on low-cost electricity to
survive and face growing competition from foreign companies that pay far less for energy, labor, and raw materials. Small businesses will also get hammered.
“EPA cannot certify that there will be no SISNOSE from this rule,” the agency admits. “SISNOSE” is EPA-speak for “significant impacts on a substantial
number of small entities.” In other words, the rules are likely to inflict significant economic harm on small businesses, and thus on the health and welfare of
numerous (former) small business owners, employees, and families. The agency failed to explain why it has once again ignored the adverse impacts on human
health and welfare caused by its rules.
EPA also confessed that U.S. power plants actually contribute a mere 3% of the total mercury deposited in computer-modeled American watersheds, and thus
in fish tissue. Citizens will justifiably wonder where the other 97% comes from, and why we should spend so much money for so little benefit. (The “missing”
mercury comes from foreign sources and from volcanoes, subsea vents, and other natural sources.)
To see how extreme EPA’s scenarios are, consider five more egregious errors in the final regulations. First, EPA admitted it could “calculate risk” for only 3,100
(4%) of the continental USA’s 88,000 watersheds.
Second, for over 60% of the 3,100 watersheds it did model, EPA took only one or two fish mercury measurements – making it virtually impossible to adopt even
valid 75th-percentile fish mercury values. There is a breaking point where extremely poor statistical sampling renders EPA’s pretentious number crunching,
conclusions, and rules invalid. That breaking point has clearly been reached.
Third, the agency’s estimates for mercury exposure risks are solely for “hypothetical female subsistence consumers” who daily eat almost a pound of fish that
they themselves catch in U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes over a 70-year lifetime. That’s less than 1% of U.S. women. For the rest of American women (who eat
mostly ocean fish, purchased at a grocery, on a far less regular basis), EPA’s rules are irrelevant.
Fourth, EPA admits that only 22 to 29% of its computer-modeled watersheds are “at risk” from EGU mercury, even when it erroneously assumed that at least 5%
of total Hg deposition into the watersheds came from U.S. power plants. If the modeling criteria were tweaked only slightly – to reflect average freshwater fish
consumption rates for American women, and require that at least 15% of total mercury deposition be attributable to EGUs – not one U.S. watershed would be at
risk.
Finally, EPA ignores the presence of selenium in nearly all fish. Its strong attraction to mercury molecules protects fish and people against buildups of
methylmercury (MeHg), mercury’s biologically active and more toxic form.
Combining any series of small probability scenarios results in a near-zero likelihood that the events will actually happen. If each of five scenarios has only a 20%
chance of happening, the likelihood that all five will happen is 0.032 percent.
As the preceding analysis suggests, the probability that all the EPA’s improbable scenarios will actually happen is virtually zero; the likelihood that its new
regulations will benefit human health is also zero.
However, EPA still stubbornly “disagrees that [mercury] exposure levels in the U.S.A. are lower than those in the Faroe Islands.” Exposure to MeHg in the
U.S.A. is “the same” as in the Faroe Islands, EPA insists.
The agency is simply wrong.
Extensive medical and scientific studies demonstrate that average Americans are exposed to at least 5 to 10 times less MeHg than average Faroe Islanders. The
islanders consume large quantities of pilot whale meat and blubber – which is high in methylmercury, high in PCBs, and low in selenium. As a result, their blood
mercury concentrations can be up to 350 times higher than the mean blood mercury levels measured by the Centers for Disease Control for average American
women.
The Faroe Islands study is irrelevant to mercury exposure risk for average Americans. EPA’s use of that study is deceptive. American women and children are
safe from any likely threats from mercury.
To top it off, EPA itself proclaims: “The emissions limits in today’s rule are technology-based … and do not need to be justified based on their ability to protect
public health.”
In other words, if the technology exists to eliminate these pollutants, the agency will impose the new regulations – regardless of their cost, their effect on
electricity prices and reliability, their impact on factory and other jobs, and whether the rules actually do little or nothing to improve human health.
It has become increasingly obvious that EPA’s real goal is to assert its authority over ever-increasing segments of our economy; reinterpret medical and
scientific studies to fit its regulatory agenda; and replace as many coal-fired power plants as possible with costly, unreliable renewable energy systems.
American voters, elected officials, and courts need to challenge these radical, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, demand an end to EPA’s distortion of
science and reality – and reverse these flawed rules.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Science, Ethics, & Human Health:
Human Health & Public Policy
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Willie Soon is a natural scientist with strong interest in mercury and public health issues. Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee For A
Constructive Tomorrow and the Congress of Racial Equality.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIV, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity