There is a lot of debate, even within EPA, over the definition of mercury
"release".  Gold, copper, and silver mining release more mercury into the
environment than fossil fuel does, but some argue "airborne" is the right
measure.
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2004/06/29/74277.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News&sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=local_news

But I emphasize the point that the "end of pipe" only works as a measure if
we agree which pipe to measure, and usually that depends upon whose backyard
it's nearest to.  Landfills and recycling bins are right under rich nations
noses, concentrating waste and obsoletes in a highly observed and regulated
arena.  It's human nature to think that the simple solution is to legislate
away the tail of the elephant when that's the part in plain sight.

Consumers and producers are partners in the marketplace, and there are
several ways to govern the marketplace.  But environmentalists must be wary
of the conclusion that producing less of something toxic will have result in
less toxics.  Like "lower-in-fat food",  ROHS is attractive in its
simplicity. Environmentalists become discouraged by obfuscation and delay.
We see climate change deniers, nicotine addiction deniers ....  In this LF
forum I've even seen simple copper recycling attacked.  Boneheadism is
contagious, and a retreat to the simple solution can have perverse
consequences.

Despite reactive frustration, enviros tend to accept the reality that there
are a finite number of eco-bills which can be legislated.  Environmentalists
need to prioritize legislation based upon simplicity, cost of
implementation, and lifecycle effectiveness.  Ivory bans and rhino horn bans
may be good models,  because they are not necessities and don't redirect
dollars towards perverse replacements.

So here's my poll for 2007:  What SHOULD the next eco- legislation be?
Leadfree petrol went through relatively painlessly because it came from auto
companies (who observed the catalytic converters were being messed up) and
was embraced by environmentalists like an early Kwanza present.

My vote has been to regulate the jewelry industry, to try to get consumers
off of the "gold standard".  That's based on where new gold deposits are
being looked for (rain forests), toxicity of production, and how well we
could live with supply interruptions.  I've gotten Leo DeCaprio's interest
so far.  Some have suggested PVC plastic resins are an anchronism (high
toxic impact, simple to replace).

Engineers, sometimes you get the dog to stop chewing the fine carpet by
giving him an old shoe to chew on, or a pesky rabbit to chase.  What should
the next eco legislation be?  (Please don't suggest something just to
trigger depreciation on newer investments by competitors)

Robin Ingenthron






----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: [LF] REACH


> Mike:
>
> The vast majority of mercury put into the environment comes from the
> burning
> of fossil fuels and incineration of waste.
>
> Please see the following report from the US EPA:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bnsdocs/mercsrce/merc_srce.html#II.
>
> Tim McGrady
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------