When I was pregnant with my first child, 35 years ago, one of the first things my doctor in Texas told me was to stop eating tuna, swordfish and other large, fatty fish because they were contaminated with mercury. What I didn’t know until I began working on children’s health issues is that the mercury in our food starts as a pollutant in our air.
Mercury is released from the combustion of coal and emitted into the atmosphere from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. It rains down on land and water, where it is passed up the food chain as methylmercury. Its effects among aquatic animals is particularly pernicious. By the time it reaches larger fish, the concentrations of mercury in their fatty tissue becomes dangerously magnified.
That’s why the federal government warns against consuming certain seafood. When pregnant women eat mercury-laden fish, the poison immediately crosses into the bloodstream, travels into the placenta and then makes its way into the fetus, where it deposits itself in the fattiest tissue available: the brain. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. It disrupts the developing architecture of a baby’s brain. It can cause brain damage in infants, affecting a child’s ability to walk, talk, read and learn.
For adults, ingesting even small amounts of mercury can cause serious health problems, harming the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune system. Those coal-fired power plants also spew out lead, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases, as well as cancer-causing chromium and selenium.
The Environmental Protection Agency spent more than 20 years working on standards that would require power plants to filter mercury from their emissions. The power industry repeatedly sued the agency to block restrictions. But finally, in 2011, the E.P.A. finalized a rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, that imposed limits on mercury emissions. The standards have been a resounding success; a testament to a government agency doing its job to keep us safe.
To comply, many power plants were outfitted with technology known as scrubbers to remove mercury from the emissions before they leave the smokestack. Since the rule went into effect in 2012, electric companies have cut mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, according to the Edison Electric Institute, an industry group. Mercury levels in Atlantic fish have been dropping in recent years, a consequence of this rule, but not in fish in the Pacific Ocean, where prevailing winds carry mercury pollution from Asia.
So who would want to unravel such an important health protection? The very man President Trump nominated last Wednesday to succeed Scott Pruitt as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: Andrew Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler, currently the acting administrator, had served as the deputy administrator under Scott Pruitt, who resigned in July facing more than a dozen investigations into his spending and management practices. The Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to consider his nomination at a hearing this Wednesday.
A former coal industry lobbyist, Mr. Wheeler recently proposed a revision to the way the government evaluates the costs and benefits of regulating mercury emissions and, more broadly, air pollution. While the proposed change would not itself upend the rule, it would revoke the E.P.A.’s determination that it was “appropriate and necessary,” undermining the very foundation on which the regulation is built.
In other words, if the rule wasn’t “appropriate and necessary,” why have it? In essence, Mr. Wheeler is inviting the coal industry to challenge the mercury rule in court. And not only the mercury rule. By rewriting the way costs and benefits are evaluated, Mr. Wheeler’s proposal threatens regulations governing a host of other environmental poisons.
The issue over the mercury rule has focused on costs and benefits. Mr. Wheeler’s E.P.A. argues that the Obama administration was wrong to include “co-benefits” that would result from the rule. The scrubbers that remove mercury from coal plant emissions also reduce other pollutants, especially particulates, which are deadly, so this co-benefit keeps lethal pollution out of the air.
Reductions in heart and lung disease from particulates prevent up to an estimated 11,000 premature deaths a year. And those other hazardous air toxics coming from industrial coal stacks? As someone who has survived kidney cancer — my oncologist vaguely explained it was “one of those environmental cancers” — I can promise you these aren’t things we want to breathe: probable carcinogens like cadmium, arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde, among others. The cost associated with harm from these was not even monetized by the E.P.A. Keeping them out of our air is a “freebie.”
If anything, the benefits of reducing mercury have been vastly understated. Since the rule was finalized, the science documenting the severe health impacts of mercury has become even stronger. New studies show that the quantified benefits of reducing mercury are now in the billions of dollars; a study published in the journal Environmental Health in 2017 estimated that the societal costs associated with the neurocognitive deficits from methylmercury exposure in the United States that year was .8 billion.
Among those urging the E.P.A. to leave the mercury standards alone was, surprisingly, the nation’s electric utility industry, which found that implementation cost far less than they had anticipated. Power industry experts indicate the true costs of the standards are billion — or less than a quarter of what the agency originally estimated. Mr. Wheeler ignored the industry’s request that the standards be left in place. As the Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelical Environmental Network, wrote in The Christian Post, addressing Mr. Wheeler’s legalistic cover of not overturning the rule but making it vulnerable to legal attack: “God is not fooled — and neither are we.” He added, “We’ll never give up on protecting children and the unborn from mercury pollution. Never.”
President Trump’s pro-polluter agenda is profoundly radical — and immoral. We are in danger of normalizing the president’s ruthless disregard for health- and science-based protections. Mr. Wheeler’s cynical ploy to upend the mercury regulations is emblematic of his agenda. His fingerprints are all over proposed rollbacks of environmental regulations covering cars, carbon emissions from power plants, coal ash and more. For this destructiveness, Mr. Trump praised him in November, saying he had “done a fantastic job and I want to congratulate him.”
Mr. Wheeler’s E.P.A. is also weakening implementation of a bipartisan law passed in 2016 protecting the public from toxic chemicals; people with chemical industry résumés dominate his staff. And Mr. Wheeler has sought to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring energy companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane; these leaks can occur from the moment a well is fracked until the gas gets to your home. Methane is an extremely powerful and swift contributor to global warming. Rather than move the country onto a path toward climate safety, Mr. Trump and Mr. Wheeler are leading us — and the world — closer to mutually assured destruction.
Mr. Wheeler is more media savvy than Mr. Pruitt ever was, and that makes him more dangerous. His nomination to run the E.P.A. is among the most consequential and cynical of all the cabinet appointments that Mr. Trump has proposed. Mr. Wheeler’s disregard for the agency’s core mission — to protect public health and the environment — is brazen. But what else should we expect from a former coal industry lobbyist?
Andrew Wheeler has demonstrated over and over again why he should not be entrusted with protecting us from harm. If his failure to do one single thing to address the global warming catastrophe isn’t bad enough to stop this nomination, perhaps his decision to upend the mercury rule, which could threaten the brains of tiny babies, will wake up senators. No one voted to make America dirty again.
Dominique Browning is the senior director and a co-founder of Moms Clean Air Force.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
生财有道 中央台【小】【布】·online【【广】【州】【这】【项】【全】【国】【第】【一】 】【阿】【里】【巴】【巴】@【钉】【钉】 【在】【广】【州】 【发】【布】“【新】【品】【牌】【之】【城】——【广】【州】”。【据】@【钉】【钉】 【数】【据】【显】【示】，2019【年】【上】【半】【年】，【在】【企】【业】【数】【字】【化】【组】【织】【转】【型】【方】【面】，【新】【零】【售】【企】【业】【组】【织】【占】【比】【上】，【广】【州】【全】【国】【排】【名】【第】【一】。【在】【新】【零】【售】【业】【企】【业】【组】【织】【增】【速】【方】【面】，【一】【线】【城】【市】【中】，【广】【州】【和】【上】【海】【持】【平】【排】【名】【第】【一】。【可】【以】【说】，【广】【州】【品】【牌】【企】【业】【数】【字】【化】【转】【型】【的】【数】【量】【和】【增】【城】【均】【在】【全】【国】【排】【名】【前】【列】！【掌】【声】【鼓】【励】
【唐】【国】【英】【点】【点】【头】【说】：“【与】【君】【共】【勉】，【大】【家】【都】【要】【注】【意】【身】【体】【啊】。” 【唐】【国】【英】【打】【算】【回】【去】【睡】【一】【觉】，【醒】【来】【后】【去】【参】【加】【沈】【家】【念】【家】【举】【办】【的】【派】【对】，【难】【得】【的】，【放】【下】【警】【察】【形】【象】【去】【蹦】【个】【迪】。 【唐】【国】【英】【到】【的】【时】【候】，【现】【场】【已】【经】【很】【热】【闹】【了】，【到】【处】【都】【是】【人】。 【唐】【国】【英】【难】【免】【在】【心】【里】【感】【叹】【一】【声】，【沈】【家】【念】【的】【朋】【友】【还】【真】【不】【少】【啊】。 【沈】【家】【念】【把】【呆】【呆】【站】【着】【的】【唐】【国】【英】【往】【沙】
【其】【中】【一】【个】【说】：“【没】【关】【系】【哥】，【俺】【几】【个】【不】【会】【伤】【你】，【就】【是】【想】【让】【你】【跟】【我】【们】【走】【一】【趟】，【大】【哥】【想】【见】【你】。” 【我】【说】：“【想】【见】【我】【给】【个】【电】【话】【就】【行】【了】，【非】【要】【这】【样】【吗】？” “【时】【间】【有】【点】【急】，【大】【哥】【怕】【耽】【搁】【时】【间】……” 【看】【他】【们】【没】【有】【动】【粗】，【我】【也】【没】【有】【喊】，【其】【实】【喊】【了】【也】【没】【用】，【周】【围】【也】【没】【有】【人】。【他】【们】【把】【我】【连】【拉】【带】【拽】【塞】【进】【停】【在】【河】【堤】【上】【的】【车】【里】，【一】【路】【谁】【也】【不】【说】【话】，生财有道 中央台【秋】【天】【的】【风】【轻】【抚】【大】【地】。 【迷】【迭】【香】【庄】【园】【外】。 【一】【名】【年】【轻】【的】【记】【者】【用】【左】【手】【扶】【了】【一】【下】【眼】【镜】。 【放】【下】【手】【中】【的】【笔】，【顺】【着】【眼】【前】【白】【发】【老】【者】【的】【目】【光】【看】【向】【窗】【外】，“【您】【在】【看】【什】【么】【呢】？” 【回】【答】【他】【的】【却】【是】【沉】【默】。 “【最】【后】【索】【菲】【法】【师】【去】【哪】【里】【了】？【您】【的】【妻】【子】【死】【后】，【是】【她】【在】【陪】【伴】【你】【吗】？” 【老】【者】【回】【头】，【似】【乎】【非】【常】【疲】【倦】，【勉】【强】【的】【笑】【一】【下】。 “【她】
【跟】【蓝】【泽】【言】【达】【成】【共】【识】【以】【后】，【战】【封】【尽】【快】【的】【把】【公】【司】【里】【的】【所】【有】【事】【情】【都】【处】【理】【好】。 【顺】【便】【吨】【了】【不】【少】【要】【带】【到】【森】【林】【里】【去】【的】【货】。 【走】【的】【头】【一】【天】【晚】【上】，【战】【封】【特】【地】【把】【孩】【子】【抱】【过】【来】【跟】【他】【睡】【在】【一】【起】。 【蓝】【熠】【已】【经】【是】【个】【小】【男】【子】【汉】【了】，【虽】【然】【知】【道】【战】【封】【才】【是】【他】【的】【亲】【生】【父】【亲】，【可】【是】【他】【还】【是】【挺】【少】【跟】【他】【睡】【一】【起】【的】。 【得】【知】【爸】【爸】【明】【天】【就】【要】【去】【找】【妈】【妈】【了】，【蓝】【熠】【也】
【王】【齐】【钰】【在】【赌】【场】【惩】【戒】【过】【孙】【真】【意】【等】【人】，【又】【救】【出】【了】【李】【凌】【波】【的】【哥】【哥】，【然】【后】【来】【到】【北】【原】【郡】【城】，【得】【到】【参】【与】【北】【山】【北】【原】【资】【源】【争】【夺】【的】【机】【会】。 【正】【当】【他】【要】【通】【过】【这】【次】【冒】【险】，【得】【到】【让】【自】【己】【进】【一】【步】【成】【长】【的】【资】【源】，【并】【解】【开】【一】【些】【谜】【团】，【却】【不】【料】【突】【发】【异】【变】。 【他】【竟】【然】【被】【系】【统】【主】【动】【拉】【入】【到】【一】【个】【云】【雾】【缭】【绕】【的】【仙】【境】，【在】【仙】【境】【中】，【他】【再】【次】【见】【到】【了】【赠】【送】【给】【他】【系】【统】【的】【琪】【昱】
【苏】【凌】【这】【身】【手】，【估】【计】【要】【想】【灭】【了】【她】，【一】【根】【手】【指】【头】【就】【够】【了】【吧】。 【吃】【完】【面】【条】，【带】【着】【给】【小】【致】【的】【出】【了】【门】。【肖】【繁】【去】【车】【场】【开】【车】。【柳】【小】【暖】【便】【站】【在】【饭】【店】【门】【口】【等】。 【白】**【面】【馆】【里】【面】【里】【走】【了】【出】【来】，【柳】【小】【暖】【笑】【了】【笑】，【心】【里】【有】【种】【不】【好】【的】【预】【兆】。【刚】【才】【她】【同】【肖】【繁】【一】【起】【结】【账】，【还】【以】【为】【她】【已】【经】【去】【了】【车】【上】【开】【车】【呢】。 【早】【知】【道】【她】【没】【去】，【柳】【小】【暖】【应】【该】【跟】【着】【肖】【繁】【一】