Sunday, April 26, 2020

Caring for community to beat coronavirus echoes Indigenous ideas of a good life

The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us our own well-being is intimately connected to other people and our natural environment.

For many people, living in a small lockdown bubble for weeks has put a heavy strain on their mental health and relationships. For others, it's been a chance to strengthen multi-generational ties.

Māori and Indigenous peoples elsewhere have long called for social and political transformation, including a broader approach to health that values social and cultural well-being of communities, rather than only the physical well-being of an individual.

When our COVID-19 lockdowns end, we can't afford to stop caring about collective well-being. New Zealand is well positioned to show the world how this could be done, including through the New Zealand Treasury's Living Standards Framework – but only if we listen more to Māori and other diverse voices.

Relationships are at the heart of living well

For many Indigenous peoples, good relationships are fundamental to a well-functioning society. In New Zealand, these connections are captured in Māori narratives charting our relationships with people and other parts of the natural world. The relationships are woven in a complex genealogical network.

Indigenous well-being begins where our relationships with each other and with the natural environment meet. These intersections generate responsibilities for remembering what has come before us, realising well-being today, and creating sustainable conditions for future generations.

Practices that enhance the importance of these relationships are central to Māori notions of "manaakitanga" (caring and supporting others) and "kaitiakitanga" (caretaking of the environment and people). We find these commitments and practices in communities and tribal groups across New Zealand.

Similarly, the Yawuru people of Broome in north-western Australia contend that good connections with other people and the natural environment play a central role in "mabu liyan", living a good life.

In North America, relationships as well as the need for cooperation and justice between all beings ground the Anishinaabe good-living concept of "minobimaatisiiwin".

In South America, reciprocity in human interactions with nature is fundamental to the Quechua people's good living notion of "allin kawsay".

For Indigenous peoples everywhere, navigating our complex responsibilities for people and other living things in ways that enrich our existence is fundamental.

Living standards and well-being

The New Zealand Treasury's Living Standards Framework, launched in late 2018, recognises that living well consists of many dimensions, including health, housing and social connections. It is based on 12 well-being indicators.

Significantly, the framework has some foundation in what is known as the capability approach, which argues the focus of well-being should be on what people are capable of doing and what they value.

The capability approach has been pivotal in moving discussions away from measures based purely on income to a broader scope of concern: the ability to live well by relating to others and the natural environment, or by participating politically.

Indigenous peoples promote the centrality of collective well-being. They emphasise the importance of sustaining relationships over generations. Examples grounded in such thinking include the Māori Potential Approach, which focuses on Māori strength and success, Whānau Ora and many earlier innovations in Māori health policy. This Indigenous work is more important than ever for shaping policy to tackle inequities.

Creating a fairer future for all

When talking about New Zealand's response to COVID-19, many people have been invoking the well-known Māori phrase He waka eke noa (we are all in this together).

But our social and political arrangements are not really equitable—and that can cost lives when it comes to a crisis like COVID-19.

Recent modelling shows the COVID-19 infection fatality rate varies by ethnicity. In New Zealand, it is around 50% higher for Māori (if age is the main factor) and more than 2.5 times that of New Zealanders of European descent if underlying health conditions are taken into account.

In the face of so many challenges—COVID-19, climate change, poverty—we have significant opportunities. One is to learn from the current experience, which has shown everyone the importance of thinking beyond individual well-being, to develop a well-being framework that better reflects diversity.

At least in its current form, New Zealand's Living Standards Framework is missing diverse voices, especially of our most vulnerable communities such as children, older people, Māori and Pasifika communities.

Around the world, work is underway on how to develop well-being indicators for children, older people, people with disabilities, and Indigenous communities.

So too are well-being initiatives undertaken by local Māori communities. The tribal census undertaken by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei is an example of communities committed to the aspirations of their people. To do this, we need to rethink long-standing assumptions about what well-being is and how it is measured.

Beyond this current crisis, we need to apply the same collective approach—of protecting each other to protect ourselves—to the other social and political challenges we face. By doing that, we could create a better future for all of us.

Promoting health through waka ama (outrigger canoe)

Provided by The Conversation

Diverse livelihoods helped resilient Levänluhta people survive a climate disaster

by University of Helsinki

A multidisciplinary research group coordinated by the University of Helsinki dated the bones of dozens of Iron Age residents of the Levänluhta site in Finland, and studied the carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios. The results provide an overview of the dietary habits based on terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems, as well as of sources of livelihoods throughout the Levänluhta era.

Ever since the 17th century, human bones have been emerging from the spring-containing lake burial site at Levänluhta in Southern Ostrobothnia, western Finland. The secrets of these Iron Age remains are now beginning to be revealed through measuring isotopes of atomic nuclei. A recently published study offers an overview of a diverse community that relied on an extremely broad range of livelihoods, which matches well with the understanding provided by archaeological discoveries.

The carbon and nitrogen in human food end up in the skeletal system and soft tissues as building blocks for the human body. There are three isotopes of carbon and two of nitrogen, and information pertaining to past events is recorded in the contents and ratios of these isotopes.

"The isotope data of the human remains at Levänluhta is divided into three clearly distinct groups, a unique occurrence around the Baltic Sea area," says Docent Markku Oinonen, director of the Laboratory of Chronology at the University of Helsinki.

Dietary modelling speaks of diverse livelihoods

There is variation between the isotope ratios of terrestrial, marine (the Baltic Sea) and freshwater food sources included in the background data used in the study. Thanks to this variation, dietary modelling based on isotopic analyses generates information on the relative shares of these different food groups. It appears that most of the people found buried in Levänluhta exploited all three food sources available to them: the Gulf of Bothnia, the plains and wilderness surrounding them and the Kyrönjoki river flowing close by. In most of the remains, the share of terrestrial food sources was roughly 85%, with an emphasis on protein-rich foodstuffs. This is a trend that prevails in the basic population throughout the entire period.

However, in certain remains approximately half of the food had been caught at sea, indicating seal hunting or fishing in the Gulf of Bothnia. Furthermore, the dataset includes a group that used no freshwater food resources at all. The researchers posit that there might be a possible connection to archaeologically observed links with locations further away in the Baltic Sea area.

Resilience generated by livelihoods helped survive a climate disaster

In the middle of the Levänluhta era, the most severe climate disaster in 2,000 years took place. In the 540s volcanic eruptions initiated a cold and dark period lasting several years, possibly reflected in folktales across the northern hemisphere. Recently the researchers working in the project headed by Oinonen have found a link between the disaster and a reduction in the quantity of light observed in the carbon isotopes found in the annual growth rings of trees in Lapland between 541 and 544.

"If you want to date Fimbulwinter, the three successive winters mentioned in Scandinavian sagas, this is the best candidate," Oinonen considers.

Fimbulwinter has been said to have caused a collapse in farming in the areas surrounding Sweden and Estonia. However, the ratio of food from terrestrial sources consumed by the Levänluhta population does not decrease after this period. Instead, the group relying heavily on marine food starts to fade out. The largest group of people continued to supplement their diet with marine food, actually increasing its presence in the human remains buried in the middle of the 7th century. Protein-rich food indicates produce derived from animals, and it appears that, instead of farming, most of the population probably based their sustenance on animal husbandry and hunting. In fact, fur trade has traditionally been thought as the source of wealth during the Iron Age in these southern roots of the Suomenselkä water divide.

Prior genetic research and place name data indicate a connection between the Levänluhta population and the Sámi. Signs of the diverse livelihoods of Iron Age Sámi have also been previously observed in Sweden on the same latitudes. Indeed, the researchers are considering whether the lake burial site of Levänluhta could be a manifestation of sáivas, the sacred spring-containing lakes in the Sámi mythology.

How was the research conducted?

The amount of radiocarbon, the radioactive isotope of carbon, serves as evidence of time periods, while the ratios of stable isotopes relate to the food sources used. By combining methods, researchers can build time series on changes in human diets and livelihoods over time.

Researchers at the University of Helsinki have carried out almost 40 radiocarbon and carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses with the bone material excavated from Levänluhta. Combining these findings with an extensive background dataset on the isotope values of nutrients and their relative quantities has enabled the conduct of dietary modelling and time series analyses throughout the Levänluhta period.

About Leväluhta

Levänluhta is among the most unique archaeological sites, even on a global scale. Bones belonging to nearly a hundred individuals who died in the Iron Age have been discovered in the middle of the Southern Ostrobothnia plains in western Finland since the 17th century. The deceased were buried during the Iron Age, roughly between the 4th and 9th centuries, probably in a lake located at the site at the time, subsequently transformed into wetland due to the post-glacial rebound as well as, later on, to arable land due to human activity. Today, three springs and their ferrous red water serve as reminders of this ancient burial site.

The published study was carried out as a multidisciplinary cooperation coordinated by the University of Helsinki, with contributions by researchers from the Laboratory of Chronology and the disciplines of archaeology, genetics and forensics from the University, as well as researchers from Natural Resources Institute Finland, the University of Tübingen and the University of Bern. Funding for the study was provided by the Emil Aaltonen Foundation through a project headed by Docent Anna Wessman.

Breakthrough in the discovery of DNA in ancient bones buried in water

More information: Markku Oinonen et al, Buried in water, burdened by nature—Resilience carried the Iron Age people through Fimbulvinter, PLOS ONE (2020). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231787

If we can put a man on the moon, we can save the Great Barrier Reef

by Paul Hardisty, Christian Roth, Damien Burrows, David Mead, Ken Anthony, Line K Bay, Mark Gibbs and Peter J Mumby, The Conversation

Scientists recently confirmed the Great Barrier Reef suffered another serious bleaching event last summer—the third in five years. Dramatic intervention to save the natural wonder is clearly needed.

First and foremost, this requires global greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed. But the right combination of technological and biological interventions, deployed with care at the right time and scale, are also critical to securing the reef's future.

This could include methods designed to shade and cool the reef, techniques to help corals adapt to warmer temperatures, ways to help damaged reefs recover, and smart systems that target interventions to the most strategically beneficial locations.

Implementing such measures across the breadth of the reef—the world's biggest reef ecosystem—will not be easy, or cheap. In fact, we believe the scale of the task is greater than the Apollo 11 moon landing mission in 1969—but not impossible.

That mission was a success, not because a few elements worked to plan, but because of the integration, coordination and alignment of every element of the mission's goal: be the first to land and walk on the moon, and then fly home safely.

Half a century later, facing the ongoing decline of the Great Barrier Reef, we can draw important lessons from that historic human achievement.

Intervening to save the reef

The recently released Reef Restoration and Adaptatio … pt feasibility study shows Australia could feasibly, and with reasonable probability of success, intervene to help the reef adapt to and recover from the effects of climate change.

The study, of which we were a part, involved more than 100 leading coral reef scientists, modellers, economists, engineers, business strategists, social scientists, decision scientists and reef managers.

It shows how new and existing interventions, supported by the best available research and development, could help secure a future for the reef.

We must emphasise that interventions to help the reef adapt to and recover from climate change will not, alone, save it. Success also depends on reducing global greenhouse emissions as quickly as possible. But the hands-on measures we're proposing could help buy time for the reef.

Cloud brightening to heat-tolerant corals

Our study identified 160 possible interventions that could help revive the reef, and build on its natural resilience. We've whittled it down to the 43 most effective and realistic.

Possible interventions for further research and development include brightening clouds with salt crystals to shade and cool corals; ways to increase the abundance of naturally heat-tolerant corals in local populations, such as through aquarium-based selective breeding and release; and methods to promote faster recovery on damaged reefs, such as deploying structures designed to stabilise reef rubble.

But there will be no single silver bullet solution. The feasibility study showed that methods working in combination, along with water quality improvement and crown-of-thorns starfish control, will provide the best results.

Harder than landing on the moon

There are four reasons why saving the Great Barrier Reef in coming decades could be more challenging than the 1969 moon mission.

First, warming events have already driven the reef into decline with back-to-back bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, and now again in 2020. The next major event is now only just around the corner.

Second, current emission reduction pledges would see the world warm by 2.3-3.5℃ relative to pre-industrial levels. This climate scenario, which is not the worst case, would be beyond the range that allows today's coral reef ecosystems to function.

Without swift action, the prospect for the world's coral reefs is bleak, with most expected to become seriously degraded before mid-century.

Third, we still have work to do to control local pressures, including water quality and marine pests crown-of-thorns starfish.

And fourth, the inherent complexity of natural systems, particularly ones as diverse as coral reefs, provides an additional challenge not faced by NASA engineers 50 years ago.

So keeping the Great Barrier Reef, let alone the rest of the world's reefs, safe from climate change will dwarf the challenge of any space mission. But there is hope.

We must start now

The federal government recently re-announced A$100 million from the Reef Trust Partnership towards a major research and development effort for this program. This will be augmented by contributions of A$50m from research institutions, and additional funding from international philanthropists.

Our study shows that under a wide range of future emission scenarios, the program is very likely to be worth the effort, more so if the world meets the Paris target and rapidly cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

What's more, economic analyses included in the feasibility study show successful Great Barrier Reef intervention at scale could create benefits to Australia of between A$11 billion and A$773 billion over a 60-year period, with much of it flowing to regional economies and Traditional Owner communities.

And perhaps more importantly, if Australia is successful in this effort, we can lead the world in a global effort to save these natural wonders bequeathed to us across the ages. We must start the journey now. If we wait, it may be too late.

Great Barrier Reef suffers worst-ever coral bleaching: scientists

Provided by The Conversation

Use of conservative and social media linked with COVID-19 misinformation

by University of Pennsylvania

People who relied on conservative media or social media in the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak were more likely to be misinformed about how to prevent the virus and believe conspiracy theories about it, a study of media use and public knowledge has found.

Based on an Annenberg Science Knowledge survey fielded in early March with over a thousand adults, the study was conducted by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The study, published this week in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, found that there were notable differences in views about the coronavirus that correlated with people's media consumption.

Media usage and COVID-19 misinformation

Conservative media usage (such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) correlated with higher levels of misinformation and belief in conspiracies about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, including:

The belief that the Chinese government created the virus as a bioweapon (scientists say the virus likely originated with animals and there is "strong evidence" it is "not the product of purposeful manipulation");
The belief that some in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were exaggerating the danger posed by the coronavirus in order to damage Donald Trump's presidency;
The belief that taking vitamin C can prevent a person from being infected with the coronavirus (which is unsupported by evidence).

Social media and web aggregator usage was associated with lower levels of information and higher levels of misinformation:

People who used social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) were more likely to believe that taking vitamin C can prevent infection with the coronavirus; that some in the CDC were exaggerating the threat to harm the president; and that the virus was created by the U.S. government;
People who used web aggregators (such as Google News, Yahoo News) were less likely to believe in the effectiveness of hand washing and avoidance of symptomatic individuals as ways to prevent transmission of the virus (in early March, asymptomatic transmission was less clear).

Mainstream broadcast and print media usage correlated with higher levels of correct information and lower levels of misinformation:

People who reported using broadcast news (such as ABC News, CBS News, NBC News) were more likely to say, correctly, that the novel coronavirus is more lethal than the seasonal flu.
People who consume mainstream print news (such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal) were more likely to hold accurate beliefs about the virus. They were more likely to report that they believe that regular hand washing and avoiding contact with symptomatic people are ways to prevent infection with the coronavirus; and less likely to believe that vitamin C can prevent infection, that some in the CDC were exaggerating the threat in order to undermine the president, and that the Chinese government created the virus as a bioweapon.

"Because both information and misinformation can affect behavior, we all ought be doing our part not only to increase essential knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, but also to interdict the spread of deceptions about its origins, prevention, and effects," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC), who co-authored the paper with Dolores Albarracín of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, an APPC distinguished research fellow. "Additionally, all forms of media should ask, Are our audiences better prepared to deal with this coronavirus as a result of our work or is their trust in us endangering them and their communities?"

Jamieson said that people seeking to verify information can go to government health sites such as the CDC website or to APPC's fact-checking project, FactCheck.org.

Annenberg Science Knowledge survey findings

The study is the first in a series on COVID-19 by APPC, which conducted similar research in 2016 on the Zika virus and in 2019 on vaccination during the measles outbreak. "Like the earlier studies, the current effort will track the success of the media in presenting accurate information and of health communicators in getting the message out," Jamieson said.

The Annenberg Science Knowledge (ASK) survey on COVID-19 was conducted March 3-8, 2020, among a nationally representative sample of 1,008 U.S. adults. The survey, conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, has a margin of error of ±3.57%.

The survey found that 87% correctly said regular hand washing and avoiding people with virus symptoms were preventative measures against COVID-19, a success in public health messaging. But it also found troubling gaps in public knowledge and worrisome belief in conspiracy theories:

More than 1 in 5 respondents (23%) thought it was probably or definitely true that the Chinese had created the virus as a bioweapon (there is no evidence of this);
More than 1 in 5 (21%) thought taking vitamin C can probably or definitely prevent infection by the coronavirus (it does not);
Nearly 1 in 5 (19%) said it was probably or definitely true that some in the CDC were exaggerating the danger posed by the virus in order to damage the Trump presidency;
And 1 in 10 (10%) said it was probably or definitely true that the U.S. government had created the virus (there is no evidence of this).

"The findings from this ASK survey contribute to the scholarship on health and science communication while also providing insights on what to do as the U.S. resolves this pandemic," Albarracín said. "The next step will be to test the efficacy of the recommendations suggested by this research."

Five recommendations

The researchers offered five recommendations to improve public understanding of the virus:

1) The need for proactive communication about prevention: While a high portion of the public (87%) knew that hand washing and avoiding symptomatic people were preventative measures, gaps in public knowledge "should alert public health officials to the ongoing need for effective communication of needed information long before a crisis."

2) Find out what information to debunk: In order to focus fact-checkers most effectively, the researchers proposed prioritizing corrections for misinformation held by at least 10% of the population. Here, for instance, the conspiracy theory that the virus was developed by the Chinese as a bioweapon (held by 23%) and that some in the CDC exaggerated the threat to harm the president (19%) should be prioritized by fact-checkers.

3) A baseline for monitoring social media interventions: By offering an early window on misinformation in the pandemic, the study provides a way to assess the social media platforms' efforts to blunt the effects of misinformation.

4) Proposed interventions in conservative media: The study should motivate public health officials to place public service announcements, encourage hyperlinks to CDC web pages, and seek interviews on news outlets whose audiences are less knowledgeable, more misinformed, or more accepting of conspiracy theories. The researchers noted that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, did that on March 11 by going on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, where Fauci explained that coronavirus is much more lethal than the seasonal flu.

5) Newspapers should take down paywalls on coronavirus coverage: The finding that reading mainstream print publications is associated with greater knowledge of the virus should encourage print media to follow the lead of publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, and others to make their virus coverage free to all readers. Readers who appreciate the public health coverage may respond by subscribing—or with donations.

Researcher launches effort to combat coronavirus conspiracies

More information: Kathleen Hall Jamieson et al, The Relation between Media Consumption and Misinformation at the Outset of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic in the US, Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review (2020). DOI: 10.37016/mr-2020-012

RIGHT WING NUTS ANTI COVID-19 PROTESTS
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/reopen-protest-movement-created-boosted.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/hi-my-uterus-and-i-find-these-shutdown.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/4/who-is-behind-coronavirus-social.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-tea-party-linked-group-plans-to.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/conservative-group-linked-to-devos.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/opinion-whos-behind-reopen-protests.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/america-has-descended-into-coronavirus.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/pro-trump-protesters-push-back-on-stay.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/fringe-right-closes-down-michigan.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/these-people-arent-freedom.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-quiet-hand-of-conservative-groups.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/pro-trump-protesters-push-back-on-stay.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/protesters-decry-stay-at-home-orders-in.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/trump-ally-lickspittle-bootlicker.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-rightwing-groups-behind-wave-of.html
IT SPREAD TO CANADA
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/reckless-yahoos-protest-at-queens-park.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/04/canada-eh-great-anti-vaxxer-coronavirus.html

Dolphins reclaim Bosphorus as virus silences Istanbul

by Fulya Ozerkan

The lockdown has meant fewer ships and more fish in the water, prompting more frequent sightings of the mammals

A lull in boat traffic and a fishing ban in Istanbul forced by the coronavirus pandemic has proved good news for some of the city's most-loved inhabitants—the dolphins that swim in the fish-rich waters of the Bosphorus Strait between Europe and Asia.

The Turkish city of 16 million has been under lockdown since Thursday as part of government measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus, following two successive weekends where it was also shut down.

The latest confinement period is due to expire on Sunday midnight.

The pandemic has claimed more than 2,700 lives in Turkey.

Spotting dolphins in the Bosphorus—a usually very busy narrow waterway connecting the Mediterranean to the Black Sea right through the heart of Istanbul—is often a source of joy for the city's residents.

But the lockdown has meant fewer ships and more fish in the water, encouraging the mammals to come closer to shore and prompting more frequent sightings.

"A decrease in boat and human traffic across the Bosphorus has a big impact," said Erol Orkcu, head of the amateur and sports fishing association in Istanbul.

"Terrestrial and aquatic living things can remain free without human beings. That enables dolphins to come closer to the shoreline," he told AFP.

Before the pandemic, fishing was a daily ritual in Istanbul with hundreds lighting fires or bringing samovars for making tea as they prepared for long angling stints along the shore.

The sight of thousands of amateur fishers on the Galata Bridge and on the banks of the Bosphorus is one of the city's iconic images. But they are now almost deserted.

The water off Istanbul is abnormally tranquil due to coronavirus restrictions

A dolphin swimming through Istanbul's unusually calm Bosphorus Strait

THIS IS NOT PARIS, THE PICTURE HAS BEEN USED IN SOCIAL MEDIA TO CLAIM THERE WERE DOLPHINS IN THE SEINE IN PARIS

'Terror' of fishing halted

Yoruk Isik, a dedicated ship spotter who snaps vessels passing through the Bosphorus, said he had photographed dolphins before the pandemic but now they were swimming much closer to the shore.

Dolphins "are coming closer to the edge of the water as the terror of uncontrolled anglers on the shoreline has temporarily stopped," he told AFP.

"I call it terror because 90 percent of them are not aware of what they are doing and cause incredible environmental pollution," he said.

At Sarayburnu, which separates the Golden Horn from the Sea of Marmara, a pod of dolphins were spotted swimming with an army of seagulls—to the joy of photographers.

The visibility of the dolphins is seen as an indicator of a healthy maritime ecosystem as the mammals are fighting for survival.

Turkish literary giant Yasar Kemal wrote about the devastation wrought on the country's coastal ecosystems by the overhunting of dolphins for oil in his 1978 novel "The Sea-Crossed Fisherman".

Since 1983, maritime mammal hunting has been prohibited in Turkey, and dolphins are protected by law.

Explore further Istanbul anglers keep up tradition despite stocks alarm

© 2020 AFP

What the EPA's mercury decision means for public health

by Leah Burrows, Harvard University

On April 16th, the Trump administration gutted a key component of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), a set of regulations designed to compel the country's oil-and-coal-fired power plants to cut emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The administration determined that it is not "appropriate and necessary" to regulate mercury under the Clean Air Act and that the costs of doing so would far outweigh the public health benefits.

However, environmental scientists and public health experts disagree with that rationale. There is strong evidence that rolling back mercury regulations will cost billions of dollars and will have a sweeping impact on public health in the United States, especially in the country's most vulnerable communities.

We spoke with Elsie Sunderland, the Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Chemistry at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) about the impact of this decision.

First, why is mercury so bad for human health?

Sunderland: After mercury is emitted to the atmosphere from power plants, it is deposited to terrestrial ecosystems and the ocean, where some of it is converted to methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin that bioaccumulates in fish and other organisms—including us. Methylmercury has been associated with impaired cardiovascular health, long term developmental delays, affects reproductive success, and is a suspected endocrine disrupter. Children exposed to methylmercury during a mother's pregnancy have been shown to experience persistent and lifelong IQ and motor function deficits. Not a single person thinks more methylmercury in the environment would be positive.

Has MATs been successful in reducing mercury emissions?

Yes. Since it was implemented, mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants have declined by 85 percent. The estimated number of children born in the U.S. each year with high levels of prenatal exposure to methylmercury levels has decreased by half. Where mercury emissions have declined, health has improved.

What was the EPA's justification for weakening MATS?

The EPA regulatory assessment was based on flawed and incomplete estimates of the benefits of reducing mercury. The EPA estimates that the yearly mercury-related health benefits of reducing emissions would be less than $10 million, which is way too low. EPA came to that figure by only considering health impacts for the children of freshwater recreational anglers in the U.S., a tiny fraction of the total population exposure to methlymercury. Most benefits to human health and wildlife haven't been monetized yet. The biggest oversight in terms of health effects was that EPA did not quantify the potential for increased risk of mortality due to impaired cardiovascular health. If you consider all of the benefits of reducing coal-fired power plant mercury emissions, they are easily orders of magnitude greater than those quantified by EPA. For example, one recent study found that the cumulative benefits associated with implementation of MATS exceeded $43 billion.

What about the administration's claims that the costs would far outweigh the benefits?

The EPA overestimated the costs of MATS at $9.6 billion. We know this is much higher than the actual cost because there were declines in natural gas prices and cheaper equipment and renewable energy costs. Even with the original overestimate, the EPA projected that MATS would increase the monthly electric bill of the average American household by only $2.71, which is well within the price fluctuation consumers experience. So, the mercury-related benefits of the MATS rule are much larger than the EPA estimated and the actual costs appear to be substantially lower.

Does this mean that there will be no regulations for mercury moving forward?

MATS is still technically in place for now but this decision severely undermines its foundation and paves the way for lawsuits from companies opposed to it and could prevent similar regulations from being implemented in the future.

Is there anything that can be done to stop this decision from moving forward?

At this point the next step is a lawsuit. This administration's decision to overturn MATS shows a blatant disregard for science and expert advice. For example, two days before the decision was announced, EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board suggested the regulatory impact assessment for MATS was outdated and flawed and should be redone

New study finds EPA mercury analysis is 'seriously flawed'

Provided by Harvard University

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment