Environmental Law Blog
Unleaded
Lead mining began in Missouri in 1720. Today, Missouri's Lead Belt is the largest lead-producing area in the world. After nearly 300 years of mining and smelting, however, the EPA will get tough on lead emissions in the air. According to the St. Louis Post, the new standard proposed by EPA will be 80-93% more stringent than the current one.
The health risks posed by lead -- particularly to children -- are well-documented. So "getting the lead out" seems like a no-brainer. But it isn't that simple. As with Newton's Third Law of physics, for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The environmental and public health benefits can be achieved only with increased costs for lead producers (and other companies that emit lead) to achieve emissions that meet the new standard. The industry may pass those costs on to consumers or workers in one way or another. That doesn't mean we shouldn't move ahead with environmental progress, only that we must be cognizant of how such changes affect all Missouri citizens. As you follow this blog, you will see that this is a common theme in environmental law. No progress is made in a vacuum.
With that in mind, what will this new standard mean for the communities with children affected by smelting, and what about those that rely on the mines and smelter for jobs and taxes for public services? Since changes are being made for the benefit of all Americans, should others share in any financial burdens faced by these Missouri communities and citizens? Tell us what you think.
Technorati Tags: air, moagoenvironmentallaw, environmental law, environmental protection
Posted by on May 2, 2008 10:17 am :: Comments (1) :: Permalink
1 Response to "Unleaded"
says:
May 5, 2008 9:37 pm
Because businesses and especially publicly traded entities are focused on profit and shareholder return isn't it a good thing when producers are required to take into consideration the environmental costs of their operations? Let those costs be included in production costs. Then let the market determine the price of the commodity. The amount any of these new costs will be passed onto the consumer would depend upon the price elasticity of demand. If we (and the market) determine that it is no longer environmentally feasible to produce lead in the way we have in the past we should not try to cling to the old ways of making a living. We don't owe those Missourians a living as lead miners. Instead, let's invest in what will pay off for those lead miners and their children in the future by investing wisely in them and their communities, beginning with education.
