Mercury pollution regulation: coal-fired power plants & tax on products containing mercury
Mercury is a heavy metal with toxic properties and it can naturally be found in rocks and soils. There are a plethora of negative impacts associated with mercury pollution, which is primarily why health professionals are also seen advocating the regulation of the metal alongside the environmental activists. It can have adverse effects on human nervous, digestive, and immune systems; moreover, it also affects the lungs, kidneys, skin, and eyes upon extended exposure1. The thing that struck me the most while researching on mercury was the incredible rate at which it can concentrate in human bodies. In North America, most of the mercury exposure we observe is from industrial wastes. Industrial wastes make their way through to our water systems where it is consumed by fish, and upon eating the contaminated sea food humans get exposed to mercury. Tuna fish is the biggest carrier of mercury in North America. One tuna fish can of about 6.5 oz contain 39 micro-grams of mercury, which is two times the daily maximum intake allowed by health agencies8. Usually, mercury levels between 25 – 30 micro grams are considered extremely toxic. Now carrying over the discussion on the mercury levels in human bodies, it is pertinent to mention that mercury from tuna is 3 times more sensitive to the infants and young children. Consumption of tuna by pregnant mothers can travel to placenta leave adverse permanent neurological impacts on infants1.
After reading this rather long introduction about the emission type, I hope the reader gets an understanding of the extensive implications that mercury pollution can have on different sectors (health, environment, land & water systems, air, etc,). Furthermore, this is exactly why mercury pollution is regulated under multiple acts or regulations, instead of being categorized in any one stream. In Canada, specifically, mercury is regulated under the following acts: Environmental Protection Act, Fertilizers Act, Fisheries Act, Food & Drugs Act, and Pest Control Act. This blog post will shed light on the mercury regulatory policy in Alberta, Canada.
Mercury regulation in Alberta is mostly regulated through the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act which was enacted in 2006 by the Progressive Conservatives government. Most of the mercury emissions in the province come from the coal-fired power plants. Alberta is home to the largest coal-fired electricity production in Canada, with a total of seven power plants in the province2. These power plants generate approximately 6000MW of energy and emit about 1200 kg/year2. Reductions in mercury emissions are referred to as ‘mercury capture’. During the inception of the policy the mercury capture target was set at 80% by the end of Dec. 2011; however, the current capture rate has only reached 25% 2,3. As part of the policy, the coal-fired plants were asked to implement emission reductions technology to curtail and monitor the rate of emissions. In some cases, the plants were required to decrease the number of hours they operate their machinery.
Therefore, in effect the government regulations are targeted at increasing the cost of the polluters and forcing them to look for different alternatives to reduce emissions. This implies that the price of energy sectors (mainly power and electricity) will rise leaving a heavy burden on consumers whose energy requirements make up most of their incomes. Thus, these regulations have widespread implications for the citizens of Alberta, who use considerable amount of electricity generated from the coal-fired plants, and so they will be worse off with this policy. There are no revenues accrued to the government from this policy and neither producers nor consumers gain. However, there are substantial positive externalities generated from the policy such as improved health of citizens as well as more productive fisheries sector. Both of these factors lead to lower government costs and higher economic returns which can then be used for other social purposes.
Now let’s switch our attention from cap to tax in the case of mercury emissions. Another method in which mercury can be captured is by phasing out products that use mercury such as batteries, thermometers, and florescent lamps. A tax on such products will shift the demand and supply demand curves inwards reducing the quantity supplied and increasing the price. The government of Alberta has hardly done anything to limit the use of such products, and it’s primarily because they have chosen to focus on coal-fired plants which are the major polluters of mercury in the province. However, the small amount of mercury found in these products is still important and the government of Alberta should make appropriate laws in this regard. I did some research and it revealed that the Alberta government is not the only jurisdiction with a lack of regulations in this regards. In fact, United Nations has been stressing hard to sensitize and educate governments around the world to put new controls. Therefore, as of Jan 19th 2013, 140 countries around the world have signed an agreement in Geneva to put in place laws to regulate household products which emit mercury7. Moreover, the U.S. has only recently implemented a global ban on such products. I believe the government of Alberta has focused more of their efforts at addressing the coal-fired emissions and have purposefully waited for the international community to decide the fate of the mercury products. Furthermore, it also outlines the shortsightedness on the part of the provincial government in Alberta. It is relevant to mention here that Canada does have a tax which limits the use of such products. Thus, the government of Alberta may also have used similar control measures, and putting a tax would have helped them in accruing some tax revenues, which could then have been used to measure and monitor the mercury capture from other sources.
During the unveiling of the policy, the then environmental minister of Alberta Guy Boutilier stated that the emissions standards set to curb mercury emissions were “some of the toughest environmental standards in North America”4. However, despite being re-elected to power in the 2008 Alberta general election, Minister Boutilier’s Progressive Conservatives has still not been able to reach the emissions target that they had intended to capture (numbers provided earlier in the blog)2. Secondly, the political intentions of the regulation have been put into question by critics who claim that the government has been secretly misusing the laws to further expand the coal-fired plant industry5. It is rumored that the expansion of some of the controversial coal-fired plants have been approved by avoiding federal environmental laws. From my research on the environment policy in Alberta, it seems as if the government is having a hard time balancing the revenues from extracting the natural resources and limiting the environmental externalities created in the process. Most of the effort has been put into estimating the exact amount of mercury emissions that are being emitted currently rather than directly dis-incentivizing the consumers and producers from reducing the emissions. Moreover, based on the analysis above I conclude that the policy right now is socially cost ineffective, with a lot of distortions. There is also a lack of political will that has led to the policy’s current state.
References:
1 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs361/en/index.html
2 http://www.environmentconference.alberta.ca/docs/Session-28_presentation-A.pdf
3 http://www.airwaterland.ca/article.asp?id=3562
4 http://www.ecoweek.ca/issues/ISarticle.asp?aid=1000195782
6 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382009002045
7 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/19/us-mercury-idUSBRE90I06020130119
peterliu318
March 19, 2013 — 10:47 pm
Interesting topic! Alerta is famous for its oil sands. Oil sands can pollute a lot. Before reading your blog, I thought Alberta won’t pay more attention on air pollution.
chenzhuo
March 19, 2013 — 11:20 pm
i like your post on mercury. maybe you could write a policy brief on this and hand it in to Rick. keke.