Latest news with #MercuryandAirToxicStandards
The Hill
17-07-2025
- Health
- The Hill
The Trump administration needs to get its story straight on mercury
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again campaign seeks to reduce child exposure to toxic metals. As a pediatrician, I fully support that goal. But even as Health and Human Services focuses on measures such as removing thimerosal from all flu vaccines and testing infant formula for metal contamination, the Environmental Protection Agency under Administrator Lee Zeldin is working to weaken emission limits on methyl mercury, as well as arsenic, lead and other heavy metals, from coal power plants. The EPA's action will increase mercury and other metals in our air, water and soil. As a result, this administration will increase, not decrease, kids' exposure to toxic metals. It's as if one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. Recent events demonstrate this HHS versus EPA heavy metal incoherence. On June 26, the newly appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 5-1 to recommend against flu vaccines containing thimerosal. Kennedy has long espoused the neurotoxicity of vaccine preservative thimerosal, which contains mercury derivative ethyl mercury. The neurotoxic effects of methyl mercury, a different compound, are well-established, with the developing fetus at greatest risk. Ethyl mercury, in contrast, is broken down and excreted much faster than methyl mercury, and much less harmful. Numerous studies have found no association between thimerosal and autism, and autism rates continued to rise after thimerosal was removed from most vaccines in 2001. It is now present in a small percentage of flu vaccines. Health and Human Services also launched Operation Stork Speed, which includes increased testing of infant formula and other foods children consume for heavy metals. This is important and valuable. But removing contaminated formula and baby foods from the marketplace will not prevent them from becoming contaminated. That can only be done by reducing the release of metals into our environment in the first place. The leading source of methyl mercury pollution in the U.S. coal combustion. From smokestacks, it makes its way into water bodies and fish we eat, thus necessitating limits on fish consumption during pregnancy. Coal combustion also releases other heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic and chromium, which end up in soil, rice, apples and, ultimately, baby food and infant formula. A 2024 rule revised the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, strengthening limits on emission of mercury and other harmful metals from coal-fired power plants. On June 11, the EPA proposed to repeal the 2024 revised standards. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA estimates that repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxic Standards will, in 2028, increase methyl mercury emissions by about 1,000 pounds, and non-mercury harmful metals by approximately 14,000 pounds, relative to keeping the 2024 standards in place. More metal emissions from power plants ultimately means more metals in formula and baby food. Secretary Kennedy knows this. This administration claims to care about child toxic exposures on the one hand, but it is working to actually increase toxic pollution on the other. This administration should align around the Health and Human Services promise of protecting children from harmful metals by retaining the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
Axios
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Axios
EPA launches repeal of Obama and Biden-era power plant rules
The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed repealing rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions and rolling back mercury and hazardous air pollutants from power plants. Why it matters: The Environmental Protection Agency's action is the most significant under President Trump to tear down Democratic administrations' climate regulations. The proposals now go to public comment and ultimately will face legal challenges. Driving the news: EPA wants to repeal the 2015 emissions standards for new fossil fuel-fired power plants issued during the Obama administration as well as the Biden administration's 2024 rule for new and existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The CO2 and mercury rules were designed to regulate coal, natural gas and oil "out of existence," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said during a news conference. A cycle of speakers at the EPA press event — mostly Republican members of Congress — lamented the closure of coal-fired power and called it a threat to the reliability country's power grid. The Navajo Generating Station — a coal-fired plant in Arizona that closed in 2019 — "was the most efficient power plant in the country, and sadly we had to tear it down," Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren said. Between the lines: Zeldin deflected questions about legal vulnerability of the rule. He emphasized EPA wasn't seeking to repeal the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), which govern emissions for mercury and other air pollutants emitted by units with a capacity of more than 25 megawatts. "What a final rule will look like is a decision to be made in the future," Zeldin said. The other side: "The Trump administration's subservience to its fossil fuel megadonors is on full display," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's top Democrat, said in a statement.
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Experts issue warning about imminent threat to public health following rule rollbacks: 'This is a disaster for everyone'
Experts are sounding the alarm after a controversial move by the Trump administration to gut key protections at the Environmental Protection Agency — a shift they say could leave the U.S. with more pollution, fewer public safeguards, and greater health risks. According to former EPA scientists and researchers, rollbacks to more than 30 environmental rules — including limits on air pollution from coal-burning plants — could directly result in more hospital visits, heart attacks, asthma flare-ups, and even premature deaths. And perhaps more unsettling? These changes are happening despite widespread support for a stronger EPA across party lines. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced plans to dismantle dozens of clean air and water protections and eliminate the EPA's scientific research office. According to internal documents obtained by The New York Times, this would result in the firing of more than 1,100 scientists, including chemists, biologists, and toxicologists who study environmental health risks. This comes alongside the rollback of rules like the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, which have helped reduce power plant pollution by more than 80% since 2011 — and are estimated to prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths every year. "This is a disaster for everyone that relies on EPA for clean drinking water, and for everyone that breathes," said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA official and coauthor of a report that found that the current air pollution rules could save more than 200,000 lives by 2050. Polluted air is directly linked to respiratory illnesses, heart disease, cancer, and even developmental issues in children. And most of that pollution comes from the same industries these regulations are meant to hold accountable: fossil fuel companies, power plants, and synthetic chemical manufacturers. These changes also limit the EPA's ability to generate its own science, opening the door for polluting industries to shape environmental policy. That could have long-lasting effects on how — or if — we regulate threats to our health moving forward. Despite these rollbacks, there are still safeguards in place — and people fighting to protect them. Organizations like the Environmental Protection Network and Clean Air Task Force are actively working to preserve science-based policies and defend public health protections. Legal advocacy groups, including Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are also preparing to challenge harmful rollbacks in court. Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home? Yes — always Yes — often Yes — sometimes No — never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Some state and local governments are stepping up where federal support is falling short. For example, California has continued to enforce its own stricter air quality standards, and cities like New York City and Denver are expanding clean energy and electrification initiatives. Together, these efforts help build a future where clean air isn't a privilege — it's a fundamental right. And every action, regardless of political support, helps move us closer to something that is easy to agree on. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump vows to immediately ramp up U.S. production of 'beautiful, clean coal'
President Trump this week continued to make his environmental priorities clear by vowing to open up hundreds of coal power plants in the United States in an effort to advance competition against China. "After years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants, I am authorizing my Administration to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL," Trump wrote in a post on social media Monday. Though the post was not linked to any particular policy plans or documents, it arrives as the White House takes aim at various environmental agencies and clean-energy initiatives. In the last week alone, the administration has announced plans to significantly roll back regulations that govern coal production and to potentially lay off up to 65% of scientists and researchers at the Environmental Protection Agency, among other actions. Coal accounts for about 16% of the country's electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — down from about 50% in 2000 as natural gas and nuclear and renewable energy have grown. Though relatively inexpensive to produce, coal is considered the dirtiest fossil fuel and comes with considerable environmental costs, including the release of particulate air pollution and nearly twice the amount of planet-warming carbon dioxide as natural gas. Read more: How the EPA's environmental about-face could upend California's climate efforts Among the coal-related items up for reconsideration by the EPA are its Mercury and Air Toxic Standards — regulations that limit emissions from the nation's largest plants that burn coal and oil to heat water, which produces steam and in turn generates electricity. The standards have "achieved significant health and environmental benefits by reducing a broad range of hazardous air pollutants," according to the EPA's website. But the agency now says that the standards "improperly targeted coal-fired power plants" and should be revisited. "EPA needs to pursue commonsense regulation to Power the Great American Comeback, not continue down the last administration's path of destruction and destitution," the agency's top administrator, Lee Zeldin, said in a statement last week. "At EPA, we are committed to protecting human health and the environment; we are opposed to shutting down clean, affordable and reliable energy for American families." Zeldin said the standards put in place by the Biden administration would cost the EPA more than $790 million between 2028 and 2038. As his EPA challenges these standards, Zeldin said, his agency is considering a two-year compliance exemption for affected power plants as it goes through the rule-making process. The nation's top environmental agency last week also announced a review of regulations that govern the disposal of coal ash — the byproduct of burning coal in power plants. The EPA hopes to prioritize a coal ash program that would expedite permit reviews and put coal ash regulations more fully into state hands, Zeldin said. The agency will similarly review rules that extend federal coal ash regulations to unregulated areas where coal ash is managed, such as inactive power plants. Zeldin said the agency's impending changes will bolster the United States' position as an energy leader and help save money for millions of Americans. "President Trump has delivered on his promise to unleash energy dominance and lower the cost of living," he said. "We at EPA will do our part to power the great American comeback." Read more: Musk team targets nearly two dozen environmental offices for closure in California These proposed changes, along with the president's social media post, underscore a considerable shift away from the clean energy initiatives of the Biden administration, including its push for green infrastructure and electric vehicles. The U.S. had been on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, according to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. But Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg News last week that the administration is now looking for ways to revive coal plants that have closed, and to prevent others from shutting down. Burgum and other officials have said keeping the plants online can help lower energy costs for U.S. consumers, among other benefits. Burgum also told Bloomberg that the administration wants to undo the Biden administration's "attack on U.S. energy" by cutting through red tape and empowering the nation to compete in an AI arms race against China. AI data centers require immense amounts of energy, which can come from coal or other sources. Read more: Despite diplomatic tension, Newsom is going to China to promote cooperation on climate change Trump's social media post suggests the renewed focus on coal is part of a power play against China, which relies heavily on cheap coal power for its manufacturing sector and economic expansion. About 60% of China's power comes from coal, which has resulted in some of the worst levels of air pollution and particulate matter in the world. That said, though China continues to rely heavily on coal, it has also begun investing in solar and wind power. The U.S., it seems, may be heading in the opposite direction. Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to China to help promote global cooperation on climate change and model California policies on clean energy and pollution reduction. In the last week, the Trump administration has suggested that a key tenet in the scientific understanding of fossil fuels — that greenhouse gases, a primary byproduct of burning coal, are harmful to human health and the environment — could be reconsidered. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
19-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Trump vows to immediately ramp up U.S. production of ‘beautiful, clean coal'
President Trump this week continued to make his environmental priorities clear by vowing to open up hundreds of coal power plants in the United States in an effort to advance competition against China. 'After years of being held captive by Environmental Extremists, Lunatics, Radicals, and Thugs, allowing other Countries, in particular China, to gain tremendous Economic advantage over us by opening up hundreds of all Coal Fire Power Plants, I am authorizing my Administration to immediately begin producing Energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL,' Trump wrote in a post on social media Monday. Though the post was not linked to any particular policy plans or documents, it arrives as the White House takes aim at various environmental agencies and clean-energy initiatives. In the last week alone, the administration has announced plans to significantly roll back regulations that govern coal production and to potentially lay off up to 65% of scientists and researchers at the Environmental Protection Agency, among other actions. Coal accounts for about 16% of the country's electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration — down from about 50% in 2000 as natural gas and nuclear and renewable energy have grown. Though relatively inexpensive to produce, coal is considered the dirtiest fossil fuel and comes with considerable environmental costs, including the release of particulate air pollution and nearly twice the amount of planet-warming carbon dioxide as natural gas. Among the coal-related items up for reconsideration by the EPA are its Mercury and Air Toxic Standards — regulations that limit emissions from the nation's largest plants that burn coal and oil to heat water, which produces steam and in turn generates electricity. The standards have 'achieved significant health and environmental benefits by reducing a broad range of hazardous air pollutants,' according to the EPA's website. But the agency now says that the standards 'improperly targeted coal-fired power plants' and should be revisited. 'EPA needs to pursue commonsense regulation to Power the Great American Comeback, not continue down the last administration's path of destruction and destitution,' the agency's top administrator, Lee Zeldin, said in a statement last week. 'At EPA, we are committed to protecting human health and the environment; we are opposed to shutting down clean, affordable and reliable energy for American families.' Zeldin said the standards put in place by the Biden administration would cost the EPA more than $790 million between 2028 and 2038. As his EPA challenges these standards, Zeldin said, his agency is considering a two-year compliance exemption for affected power plants as it goes through the rule-making process. The nation's top environmental agency last week also announced a review of regulations that govern the disposal of coal ash — the byproduct of burning coal in power plants. The EPA hopes to prioritize a coal ash program that would expedite permit reviews and put coal ash regulations more fully into state hands, Zeldin said. The agency will similarly review rules that extend federal coal ash regulations to unregulated areas where coal ash is managed, such as inactive power plants. Zeldin said the agency's impending changes will bolster the United States' position as an energy leader and help save money for millions of Americans. 'President Trump has delivered on his promise to unleash energy dominance and lower the cost of living,' he said. 'We at EPA will do our part to power the great American comeback.' These proposed changes, along with the president's social media post, underscore a considerable shift away from the clean energy initiatives of the Biden administration, including its push for green infrastructure and electric vehicles. The U.S. had been on track to close half of its coal-fired generation capacity by 2026, according to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. But Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told Bloomberg News last week that the administration is now looking for ways to revive coal plants that have closed, and to prevent others from shutting down. Burgum and other officials have said keeping the plants online can help lower energy costs for U.S. consumers, among other benefits. Burgum also told Bloomberg that the administration wants to undo the Biden administration's 'attack on U.S. energy' by cutting through red tape and empowering the nation to compete in an AI arms race against China. AI data centers require immense amounts of energy, which can come from coal or other sources. Trump's social media post suggests the renewed focus on coal is part of a power play against China, which relies heavily on cheap coal power for its manufacturing sector and economic expansion. About 60% of China's power comes from coal, which has resulted in some of the worst levels of air pollution and particulate matter in the world. That said, though China continues to rely heavily on coal, it has also begun investing in solar and wind power. The U.S., it seems, may be heading in the opposite direction. Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled to China to help promote global cooperation on climate change and model California policies on clean energy and pollution reduction. In the last week, the Trump administration has suggested that a key tenet in the scientific understanding of fossil fuels — that greenhouse gases, a primary byproduct of burning coal, are harmful to human health and the environment — could be reconsidered.
