Trump EPA wants to change regulations that will allow more mercury to be released in the air

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,957
27,638
136
Guess what the industry doesn't want it.
The 2011 Obama administration rule, called the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, led to what electric utilities say was an $18 billion clean-up of mercury and other toxins from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.

But as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares to finalize the latest in a long line of rollbacks, the nation’s power sector has sent a different message:
Thanks, but no thanks.
Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utilities, told the EPA that its effort to change a rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other toxins is “an action that is entirely unnecessary, unreasonable, and universally opposed by the power generation sector.”
Kathy Robertson, a senior manager for environmental policy at the company, said the industry long ago complied with the rule.
“And it works,” she said. “The sector has gotten so much cleaner as a result of this rule.”

Overall, environmental groups say, federal and state efforts have cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 85 percent in roughly the last decade.
Mercury causes brain damage, learning disabilities and other birth defects in children, among other harm. Coal power plants in this country are the largest single manmade source of mercury pollutants, which enters the food chain through fish and other items that people consume.

Screw the children Trump gets to cut a regulation the darkie put in place.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,511
29,091
146
It's important to keep this stuff fresh and to constantly litter the airwaves with how Trump is literally trying to poison your children to death, but it's also important to note that none of this will ever happen. The EPA could never defend this in court (as they are required to do), but it's just more of the same vindictive pettiness from the toddler in chief.

remind people that their fucking orange baby is out of control again.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
I love watching those Trump fans at major events like the recent Daytona 500.
Young hot girls wearing cowboy hats cheering on the attendance of Donald Trump.
Woot. Woot. Trump. Trump.
So I wonder.... what will these young hot women look like when fighting stage 4 cancer, or after a mastectomy, or when their first born is stillborn.
Do you think they will thank Trump?
Do you wonder if they will think of Trump?
I’d guess you’d have to ask them, but not now. Wait 3 or 4 years from now.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,989
23,785
136
He is just doing what he said, pushing that beautiful clean coal (except for the acid rain, mercury in the environment, coal ash) its totally clean. That feeling of your skin burning while getting dumber by the day is what Trump supporters call winning. MAGA!
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,848
2,051
126
So I wonder.... what will these young hot women look like when fighting stage 4 cancer, or after a mastectomy, or when their first born is stillborn.
Do you think they will thank Trump?
Do you wonder if they will think of Trump?
I’d guess you’d have to ask them, but not now. Wait 3 or 4 years from now.
Whatever it is it's clearly a Democrat's or liberal's fault.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,885
32,668
136
Lets see the ways this will go sideways:

1) The basis for the rule change is not only arbitrary and capricious but clearly harmful in the simplest terms possible to understand. Legal doom.

2) Utilities have already spent billions to come into compliance with MATS through technology or closing plants which incidentally natural gas and renewables have made defunct economically anyway.

3) Utilities recovered the costs from ratepayers to make upgrades which said ratepayers might now sue to reclaim.

4) States already closing out their coal and pushing it out of their imported power mix will act even more aggressively to do so, pushing the entire coal industry into an even more rapid decline.

5) Utilities sensing that "we love more airborne heavy metals" isn't a great ad slogan not to mention increasing corporate demands for clean power are likely to accelerate their transition away from coal. They didn't want this in the first place since the regulation has largely run it's course and the benefits are concrete and popular.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,989
23,785
136
Lets see the ways this will go sideways:

1) The basis for the rule change is not only arbitrary and capricious but clearly harmful in the simplest terms possible to understand. Legal doom.

2) Utilities have already spent billions to come into compliance with MATS through technology or closing plants which incidentally natural gas and renewables have made defunct economically anyway.

3) Utilities recovered the costs from ratepayers to make upgrades which said ratepayers might now sue to reclaim.

4) States already closing out their coal and pushing it out of their imported power mix will act even more aggressively to do so, pushing the entire coal industry into an even more rapid decline.

5) Utilities sensing that "we love more airborne heavy metals" isn't a great ad slogan not to mention increasing corporate demands for clean power are likely to accelerate their transition away from coal. They didn't want this in the first place since the regulation has largely run it's course and the benefits are concrete and popular.
You left out - out of work coal miners will cheer this move as brining back coal, vote for Trump and still be out of work as more mines close due to all the reasons above.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,885
32,668
136
You left out - out of work coal miners will cheer this move as brining back coal, vote for Trump and still be out of work as more mines close due to all the reasons above.

I've read some interviews and most of those miners appear to know that the industry is going under but are somehow, without any evidence, convinced that it's going under slower with Trump instead of Hillary. Even though Trump is doing everything possible to economically squeeze their rural existence into oblivion by trying to cut off social funding, healthcare, economic redevelopment funds, etc.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,280
5,053
136
At the same time, the EPA cut the amount of detectable lead in paint that triggers abatement procedures. It seems so random.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,280
5,053
136
Lead paint affects Trump personally.
Seems unlikely. Lead paint isn't a problem if you leave it alone. The effects of dust created by disturbing lead paint is most relevant to young children. On top of that, the EPA trigger amount is still greater than the OSHA trigger.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,885
32,668
136
At the same time, the EPA cut the amount of detectable lead in paint that triggers abatement procedures. It seems so random.

The EPA's own IG found that the agency has failed to implement this rule. Given the intentionally collapsed nature of the inspection and enforcement regime at EPA none of this seems all that "random".
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,848
26,628
136
Seems unlikely. Lead paint isn't a problem if you leave it alone. The effects of dust created by disturbing lead paint is most relevant to young children. On top of that, the EPA trigger amount is still greater than the OSHA trigger.
Have you listened to Don Jr. or Eric? Paint chips are the only explanation that makes sense. The gold leaf on the surface was too much to resist.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Meghan54

Ottonomous

Senior member
May 15, 2014
559
292
136
He probably thought he was bringing back Mercury the car company and the Air Toxics were emissions
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,280
5,053
136
The EPA's own IG found that the agency has failed to implement this rule. Given the intentionally collapsed nature of the inspection and enforcement regime at EPA none of this seems all that "random".
That's been the case for a very long time. Asbestos identification and abatement have been pretty much ignored for the last 20 years.
The fines for not following lead abatement procedures are astonishing, on the order of $32k per infraction. At the same time, the procedures are almost universally ignored in residential remodeling. There are several reasons, but the most common is that compliance is complicated, and the most trivial mistake carries catastrophic fines. There are also issues with testing. The simple swab test kits (that aren't legal in CA) are pretty good at detecting lead, but I've seen studies that showed a 78% false positive rate. There is no doubt that the entire lead paint issue is a clusterfuck, and there is also no doubt that the federal government is directly to blame for allowing the material on the market. Lead paint was banned in Europe in the 40's, and allowed in the states until the late 70's. The paint lobby was pretty good here in the US.
The rules need to be changed to simplify compliance. The actual abatement procedures for lead aren't difficult to follow. There are also coatings on the market that claim to convert the lead in paint to a harmless oxide, though the EPA hasn't given them an endorsement.

Btw. I'm an EPA certified lead abatement contractor.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,885
32,668
136
That's been the case for a very long time. Asbestos identification and abatement have been pretty much ignored for the last 20 years.
The fines for not following lead abatement procedures are astonishing, on the order of $32k per infraction. At the same time, the procedures are almost universally ignored in residential remodeling. There are several reasons, but the most common is that compliance is complicated, and the most trivial mistake carries catastrophic fines. There are also issues with testing. The simple swab test kits (that aren't legal in CA) are pretty good at detecting lead, but I've seen studies that showed a 78% false positive rate. There is no doubt that the entire lead paint issue is a clusterfuck, and there is also no doubt that the federal government is directly to blame for allowing the material on the market. Lead paint was banned in Europe in the 40's, and allowed in the states until the late 70's. The paint lobby was pretty good here in the US.
The rules need to be changed to simplify compliance. The actual abatement procedures for lead aren't difficult to follow. There are also coatings on the market that claim to convert the lead in paint to a harmless oxide, though the EPA hasn't given them an endorsement.

Btw. I'm an EPA certified lead abatement contractor.

Governments and industry have known the dangers of lead for many decades but generally allowed those products into the wild because industry lobbying was pretty successful, under various administrations. Lead water service lines weren't even fully banned until 1986 which seems outrageous since it's going to cost an unthinkable sum to eventually fix.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,475
6,896
136
Whatever it is it's clearly a Democrat's or liberal's fault.


Agreed. Their reasoning being Trump's industrialist cronies over at the EPA wouldn't have been forced to rescind those regs if the Dems hadn't instituted them in the first place.

It's always the Dems fault and the Repubs have made an art out of having their constituency buy into the scam, one of their best being the one where giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy will shower the conservative masses with trickle down gold and silver.

They're all in with no way out because to do so is to be branded a traitor, ridiculed, persecuted and made examples of, same as what Trump does to anybody in his circle that outs him for the dictatorial megalomaniacal imbecile that he is.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,511
29,091
146
Seems unlikely. Lead paint isn't a problem if you leave it alone. The effects of dust created by disturbing lead paint is most relevant to young children. On top of that, the EPA trigger amount is still greater than the OSHA trigger.

Don't tell me that you aren't convinced toddler Trump was that neighborhood kid eating the paint chips...
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,063
1,464
126
Mercury causes brain damage, learning disabilities and other birth defects in children, among other harm
Sounds like they're trying to create more Republican voters by repealing this rule.