EPA Delivers Holiday Gift: New Mercury Rules

What, you don't want me?<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ittybittiesforyou/4969087398/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Jenn and Tony Bot</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


A little bit of good news for the holidays: the EPA is taking some coal out of our stocking. On Wednesday, the agency announced the new national standards on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants, an event that has enviros and public health groups cheering.

The rules, according to the EPA, will yield $9 in public health benefits for every $1 that the industry has to spend on technology to cut pollution. Officially called the utility maximum achievable control technology (or utility MACT), the pollution limits will also prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks each year, according to the agency. Overjoyed statements from groups like Greenpeace, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Green for All, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Sierra Club, and Environment America have flooded reporters’ inboxes. The Evangelical Environmental Network, which had campaigned for the rules on the argument that “mercury pollution is a pro-life issue,” was also quite pleased.

The Center for Progressive Reform had a good post on the new rules, and David Roberts at Grist explains why they’re are such a BFD.

The emissions limits have been in the works since a set of amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990—which, if you’re keeping track, is a kind of a long time to wait. The EPA is touting these as the first standards on these pollutants, but that’s not entirely true. The Bush administration did put out mercury rules, but they were crappy and got thrown out in court for failing to protect public health.

Of course, even though it’s had plenty of time to get ready for them, the energy industry doesn’t like the rule because it means they might have to shut down some coal plants that can’t meet the standards. The rules will probably put somewhere between 32 and 58 power plants out of business, according to the AP’s analysis. This is not, however, going to cause massive blackouts as doom-saying foes of the rule have claimed. And by the EPA’s estimates, 60 percent of coal- and oil-fired power plants already have pollution controls; it’s just the oldest and dirtiest that would be affected. Which is, of course, another reason why enviros are so happy.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate