EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is pushing hard in defense of their $10 billion-a-year (to as much as $100 billion, by real-world estimates) plan to kill coal-fired plants and cause your energy bill to skyrocket sound and necessary regulation to protect children from airborne mercury emissions, arguing earnestly that it's "fair". Environmeddlists like Sierra Club are fully on board, falsely stating “When this little girl grows up her world will have significantly less mercury pollution because President Obama and the EPA stood up against polluters and established the first-ever clean air standards."
Never mind that the air in the USA is cleaner than that in any other country. Never mind that mercury emissions, already miniscule, are of little consequence to humans - it does impact aquatic species, and it can bioconcentrate in toxicity as it's passed through the food chain. However, EPA itself estimates that the new mercury regulation serves to protect America’s population of pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen, who eat 300 pounds of self-caught fish reeled in exclusively from the most polluted bodies of water.
That no such individuals exist is irrelevant: the EPA, by its own admission, has issued a regulation that is specifically designed to "protect" a nonexistent population - while eliminating an inexpensive source of energy for some 22 million Americans at a cost of between $10 and $100 billion annually, together with the elimination of hundreds of jobs at coal-fired power plants. EPA gamely insists, however, that the regulation will be a "job creator"; galvanizing the emissions-control industry.
You will live in mud-and-straw huts, and you'll be darned thankful for that.
