Mercury rules editorial

first, some gems:

"The competition is tough, but of all the Bush administration's retreats on controlling air pollution, its proposed new rules on mercury may prove to be the most cynical."

"The administration points to the success of emissions trading in reducing sulfur dioxide pollution, and thus acid rain, during the 1990s. This is true but beside the point. Though noxious and destructive, sulfur dioxide does not pose the same threat to human health that mercury does. That's why the Clean Air Act makes the distinction in regulatory regimes that EPA is now intent on blurring.

It's worth noting that the Clinton White House considered, and rejected, a similar approach to mercury emissions, having concluded that the law permitted no such thing. Even the Bush EPA, in 2001, began talking with utilities about a MACT-style reduction of 90 percent in their mercury output. Then the lobbyists got busy and the rules were changed."

Star Tribune