Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Why worry about mercury?

Dec 4, 2003 8:34PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Why worry about mercury?
Dec 4, 2003 10:02PM PST
- Collapse -
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!...
Dec 5, 2003 4:22AM PST

and I bet your skimming missed this portion completely:

"The EPA will propose both strategies, and pick one after hearing public comment."

"The so-called Clear Skies Initiative also would have established a cap-and-trade program for mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxides, but it remains stalled in Congress." ... "According to the EPA's own analysis, Clear Skies alone would have cut mercury in Texas by 45 percent by 2020."

Two guesses about who is responsible for stalling it and neither should include Republican or Bush if you expect either to be correct.

- Collapse -
I didn't miss it, BUT
Dec 5, 2003 9:47PM PST

It didn't adhere to the message being promulgated. I was puzzled.

Ian

- Collapse -
An increase? Is this new math?
Dec 5, 2003 4:35AM PST

The article said the EPA is imposing a 'mandatory 70 percent cut' where, today, there are no limits at all. That's a CUT, not an increase. Why didn't Bill take care of this if it's so bad?

- Collapse -
Whilst understanding the apparent need to join a group, and target word usage
Dec 5, 2003 9:52PM PST

to obtain your credentials, its getting a little wearying the way you keep misquoting DK and the links he provides.

The increase postulated for Texas would be due to the national electricity generating organisations swapping portions of the emissions limitations between both companies and the sites run by those companies.

Whether the article is factual or speculative, it however is quite clear that, in the eyes of the writer, Texas residents would get greater mercury emissions.

Ian

- Collapse -
Question, Dave..
Dec 6, 2003 3:05AM PST

Question, Dave. The story said, "The bulk of the emissions come from large power plants in five counties, some of which burn lignite, a soft, brown coal plentiful in Texas."
Would it reduce their emissions if they burned a hard coal? Of course, that may run up their expense and your power bill, but would you say that would be a possible plan if it did?

- Collapse -
Yes, it would.
Dec 6, 2003 6:39PM PST

.