Mercury (regulations) in Retrograde

On March 12, the new U.S. EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced a set of massive pollution-control rollbacks, describing the action as the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history.” Consequential yes, but perhaps not in the way he was thinking. In a Wall Street Journal essay published the same day, he boasted that “We (presumably the “royal we” of the new administration) are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,'' and that the rollbacks will “eliminate trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and “hidden taxes,” thus lowering the cost of living for American families and reducing prices for such essentials such as buying a car, heating your home and operating a business.”

Maybe.

He doesn’t address the other consequences—more carbon emissions in the atmosphere, more sulfur dioxide (remember good old acid rain?), more soot in the air we breathe—especially near large coal-fired power plants, and more mercury in our waters, our fish, and food. In the magical world of the one-sided economic benefits Zeldin touts in his essay, externalities—the costs and consequences of pollution—will simply be absorbed by people and the environment—because after all, asthma and heart disease, and that unsafe-to-eat contaminated walleye is our way of saying thank-you for the opportunity to contribute to building someone else’s private wealth so they can enjoy their Golden Age.

Things weren’t so golden when this economic model was booming after World War II, and by the 1960s, the widespread environmental damage was starkly evident, from city smog to the dead birds on Santa Barbara’s shores, to the algal soup and flaming rivers that defined Lake Erie. This sparked public action, and our democracy responded. The Nixon Administration established the EPA in 1970, and soon after, Congress enacted the first generation of modern environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These laws served as early building blocks of today’s regulatory framework. Air became easier to breathe; water became cleaner and safer.

Rapid scientific advances helped us better understand environmental threats, such as how toxic chemicals in the food web influence reproduction and development in wildlife and humans, and how greenhouse gases are changing our atmosphere. Congress strengthened laws based on new knowledge and EPA developed responsive regulations, because its job is to protect human health and the environment.

In the 1980s I worked hard, along with a cohort of other environmental leaders, to strengthen controls on toxic air pollution in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. This included advocating for stricter regulation of airborne chemicals that pollute the waters of the Great Lakes and accumulate to dangerous levels in the food web. PCBs were on that list, as were several others, including mercury. I write about the legislative battle in my book, Wilderness, Water & Rust, and about the last-minute deals that softened and delayed mercury regulations for coal and oil-fired power plants. Among other things, those compromises made EPA’s authority to regulate these sources conditional on whether the Administrator found that regulation was appropriate and necessary—conditions just ripe for law-suits.

Legal and political wrangling ensued over the next two decades, and finally, in 2012, EPA was able to issue its final rule for mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) from these power plants, with compliance required by 2016. Many made the investment in technology and did comply. In 2020 the Trump Administration played the “it’s too expensive card” and its EPA suspended the rules. Only a few weeks into the Biden administration, EPA reinstated rules and now, the new administration is taking the initial steps that would allow them to reverse them again.

Elemental mercury is nasty stuff, and it is even nastier when biological metabolism converts it to methylmercury in aquatic food webs. It is a potent neurotoxin, as we learned from tragedies such as the Minamata disaster. Nearly every inland lake in the Great Lakes region carries warnings about mercury contamination in fish. In the Great Lakes themselves, the top predator fish, such as mature lake trout, carry the largest body burdens. We don’t want more of this in water, food, or wildlife. Period. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent iterations, the United States has made considerable progress in reducing its mercury emissions, but global sources are also a problem. We used to be a model for other nations that are working on cutting back their emissions. Let’s not go backwards in leadership for the sake of corporate profits. Meanwhile, pay attention to fish consumption guidance (the graphic below is from Wisconsin’s “Choose Wisely” guidance). 

If you’d like to share your thoughts with the Administrator, write to him at Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460. For U.S. readers, while you are at it, copy your remarks to your Congressional Representative and Senators.

—Jane Elder, March 25, 2025

GLEN welcomes diverse perspectives on Great Lakes protection. Please note that the views in our posts are those of the author. To read on Substack or subscribe, click on this link https://open.substack.com/pub/greatlakestogether/p/mercury-regulations-in-retrograde?r=5do8oz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true