Mercury needs to be addressed

I am not a specialist on mercury. I certainly want to see cost-effective ways to address all varieties of pollution; however, I do not see "zero pollution" as feasible or reasonable. Certainly, demand side management and conservation are two ways to reduce the demand for electricity. Renewables can fill some niches, but at present many of the technologies are not competitive with fossil fuels. When the U.S. (including Florida) really begins addressing CO2 issues, we will start to see a shift away from fossil to higher cost technologies (including carbon sequestration): that will help. At some point, we probably need to get nuclear back into a balanced energy portfolio. In the meantime, mercury needs to be addressed.

Environmental policy-makers must be aware of the relationship between changes in impacts in one medium and changes in impacts in other media. For example, reducing airborne emissions of mercury will also lead to reduced mercury concentrations in rivers and lakes. However, it may also be the case that reducing ozone precursors from auto emissions by using methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) leads to increasing harm to bodies of water as the MTBE precipitates out in rain. Good stewardship of resources, including the environment, demands that we base decisions on the best science available and that we identify the trade-offs requiring tough choices. Electricity prices need to reflect the higher costs associated with abatement activities.

Sanford Berg
Distinguished Service Professor, Economics and Director of Water Studies, PURC University of Florida