What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
Giving Compass' Take:
· Although weighing costs and benefits of things has been a tactic used for decision-making on many fronts, the author urges the EPA to reevaluate their rule-making process and inform the public of the whole story.
· What are co-benefits? How has the EPA used an imbalanced cost-benefit ratio in the past? What is being done to fix this problem and inform the public of the deliberation process?
Should you be worried about mercury emitted from power plants?
Sure, but only if you are a pregnant woman, who during gestation consumes about 220 pounds of fish caught from exclusively the top ten percent most polluted fresh waters of the United States, despite all the signs along these rivers and lakes warning “DO NOT EAT THE FISH!”
Don’t take my word for it. I’m simply relaying EPA science. And not the ‘bad” kind produced by the Trump administration; rather, I’m talking about virtuous EPA science as practiced by the Obama administration.
A little background: mercury emissions aren’t a direct threat to humans, but instead settle onto water bodies, and then make their way up the aquatic food chain. Because mercury is a neurotoxin, the fear is that pregnant women can engender developmental disorders in their offspring by eating fish that have bio-accumulated the toxin.
Read the full article about EPA co-benefits and rule-making by William Yeatman at the Cato Institute.