Bush and Kerry: Competing Visions for U.S. Energy Policy

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall 2004 by Hayes, David, Garman, David

David Garman: Sure, and let's say a word about mercury. Right now there is no federal cap on emissions from mercury. Right now power plants are free to emit mercury and, in fact, we emit about forty-eight tons a year of mercury. What the administration has proposed is again for the first time a 69% decrease in mercury emissions, lowering that 48 tons to 26 tons by 2010 and 15 tons by 2018. Now some, of course-and this is understandable and part of the process-are saying we need to do more, and we understand that. We have public comments to understand where the science is, what is the cost effective reduction that can be made as quickly as possible, what's the best way to approach that, and that process is unfolding. But I think it's important, for some who are saying, "no, we need 90 % emissions reductions, and we need them by 2007," or whatever the date is, we need to remain mindful that while we argue about this, there is still no emissions reduction cap in place today. So this is one of those areas where I think we need to work together with perhaps a little less volume and a little more collaboration, get a mercury standard in place so that we can start realizing the real health and human benefits that will result from that standard.

Ira Flatow. David Hayes, rebuttal.

David Hayes: I think the first thing to say is that we appreciate the fact that the mercury standard is not going to be set before November, and that John Kerry's administration will have an opportunity to make the final decision on the appropriate mercury standard. As you know, there are strong feelings that the Bush administration is not taking a hard enough look at the technology that is available to reduce mercury. There is no question that we have a very, very serious problem with mercury deposition that is affecting fish, in particular, that are in our food chain. It is imperative that we be driven by the science and push hard to take this opportunity to take mercury out of our electric utilities. And to do so, I should say, in connection with strong reductions for nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon. I think the fact that the Bush administration has continually avoided the carbon issue has complicated the question, because utilities are uncertain of how they can deal with all four pollutants at the same time. Instead, we're in a debate that is unfortunate, that is sort of segmented, where the mercury program is being looked at out of the context of at least one other significant pollutant, carbon, that also needs to be addressed and should be addressed simultaneously, as John Kerry has suggested.

Ira Flatow: David Garman, anything to add? No. Okay. Let's move on to John.

JOHN J. FIALKA: QUESTION - ENERGY PLANS

John Fialka: I have the same question for both gentlemen: When it comes to the supply side, we find ourselves going into a campaign with the highest gas prices, the highest gasoline prices, the highest coal prices and the highest uranium prices the market has ever seen. Now, Mr. Garman, your candidate saw some of these problems early on in 2000 and put together an energy plan which is still languishing in Congress for a variety of reasons. Mr. Hayes, you have an ambitious plan as well, but if the powers of incumbency are what I think they are in this town, if your candidate is elected, he will inherit a Congress that is probably as polarized, as pork-oriented, and as distracted as this Congress has been. So you both have a plan, how do you implement it?