Reversing the policy of the G.W. Bush administration, the U.S. Joined 140 nations adopting the first legally binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions. A signing ceremony will be held in Japan later in the year after which it will take 50 nations to ratify.

Fifty percent of mercury emissions come from volcanoes. Some anthropogenic sources are thermometers, the infamous CFL light bulb, dental fillings, facial cream, small scale gold mining, cement production and coal-burning power plants.

The hat making industry long ago dispensed with mercury after learning the use of mercury-based compounds resulted in mad hatters. Some countries have already banned mercury-containing thermometers. The CFL light bulb probably won’t wind up in the dust bin of history. For one thing a dust bin is not the recommended way of disposing of the bulb plus the greens love it. Dental amalgam which is composed of several metals including mercury, will probably be phased out under the UN Treaty even though the FDA in 2009 reaffirmed its position that dental amalgam is safe.

Given the soaring value of gold, small-scale gold mining, a.k.a. Artisanal Gold Mining, is going on at a frenetic pace, mostly in Africa. Crude and unsafe processes are used often employing hand tools and child labor. The Artisanal Gold Council estimates that as many as 15 million people work in the sector which produces about 20 percent of the total gold supply. Mercury is used in the process to separate gold from rock and silt. The worker inhales gaseous mercury and mercury waste runs off into the water supply. This, unlike many of the other sources of mercury emissions, is something that urgently needs to be reformed.

The ace up the sleeve of this UN treaty is the regulation of coal-burning power plants, the real target. Face creams and dental fillings are negligible add-ons. Small-scale goldmining is often done illegally so reforms are unlikely to occur. If this treaty is ratified, the UN will have the power to regulate coal-burning power plants under the aegis of regulating mercury emissions. At its inception, the treaty will give existing facilities 10 years to meet pollution control standards. Once the UN is granted regulatory and enforcement power, who knows what comes next.

Mercury treaty rises but weak emissions regime undercuts progress

“Adoption of a global legal agreement on mercury is a major accomplishment,” said Michael T. Bender, co-coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group. “Yet the instrument is hampered by weak controls on mercury emissions from major sources like coal-fired power plants.”

For instance, new facilities will not be required to have mercury pollution controls for 5 years after the treaty enters into force, with existing facilities given 10 years before they begin their control efforts.

Yet ZMWG says there are bright spots in the treaty. These include provisions to reduce trade, prohibit the primary mining of mercury, and phase out the toxic element in most products containing mercury, like thermometers, measuring devices and batteries.

“Some of these steps were unthinkable just a couple of years ago. Now, alternatives exist for most all products containing mercury,” said Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, of European Environmental Bureau and co-coordinator of ZMWG. “The treaty sends the right market signal and will eventually lead to less exposures worldwide.”

The treaty also addresses artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM), which is both the largest intentional use of mercury globally, and is the largest emission source.
“While national action plans will foster reduced use of mercury in ASGM, the treaty fails to include a provision to require an eventual end to this polluting practice,” said Richard Gutierrez, Ban Toxics! Director from the Philippines. “With the current text, it seems that mercury use in ASGM may go on indefinitely.”

The treaty has been in the works for many years. The Bush administration insisted on a “voluntary partnership” approach under any international treaty on mercury regulation. That was then. This is the beginning of Obama’s second term. There’s change blowing in the wind. Hold on to your hats.

BTW, Mercury poisoning is listed as a “rare disease” by the National Institutes of Health. This means that mercury poisoning affects less than 200,000 people in the US population.

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Maynard says:

    Aside from questions of sovereignty, I’m curious if this is a burden that hits America and leaves other more offensive targets untouched. Lots of coal is burning in China these days; do they get a pass? Who pays, how much do they pay, can they afford it, do any problems actually get solved?

  2. Shifra says:

    So, I guess mercury thermometers will *not* be making a comeback anytime soon 🙁

  3. ShArKy666 says:

    ANY of these treaties are garbage. we should never do anything if it’s not for OUR best interests. oh yeh, so are those stupid CURLY CUE florescant light bulbs gonna be banned now with the mercury in them?

  4. Alain41 says:

    A treaty is not in effect in U.S. unless the 2/3 of the Senate ratifies it. The U.S. is now a signatory to the treaty but without 2/3 Senate vote, it is not ratified. A Presidential administration can not make a treaty by itself, eg, checks and balances. So the media can write, the U.S., a signatory to the Treaty on Mercury, is not taking action or has not done… Now, the EPA can claim that they have to regulate mercury emissions from fossil plnats due to the treaty, but that is not true today. They will be regulating because they choose to. EPA doesn’t have to unless Senate ratifies.

    So the Republicans ought to be making hay claiming that this is unwarranted as discussed above, and unneccessary. The U.S. EPA has legal authority now to regulate mercury emissions if warranted. That’s the issue of course, it’s not warranted and any regulation will be challended unless EPA can say, we have to do it per treaty, then the courts will back off and/or find for EPA.

    Repeat, the Republicans ought to be screaming, fundraising, and making a coordinated publicity attack against this. Anything? That retreat is worthless, if they didn’t learn to take an issue handed to them and attack. Yes, the Democrats will attack Republicans to both ratify and if they don’t as being anti-environment. If Republicans go on offense publicly, they can win or at least neutralize the Democrat attack so we citizens win. If all the Republicans do is play catch the Democrat and media spears, then they will lose, and we citizens will lose again.

    GO ON OFFENSE, REPUBLICANS! It’s the right thing to do.

    • Pat_S says:

      Good point. In fact last month the Senate did reject a U.N. treaty.

      Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote

      The treaty, backed by President Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for confirmation as dozens of Senate Republicans objected that it would create new abortion rights and impede the ability of people to homeschool disabled children.

      Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty, an argument echoed by other opponents.

      “This unelected bureaucratic body would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory,” he said.

      That reasoning applies in this case as well. The Obama administration may nevertheless follow the ‘spirit’ of the treaty if the Senate doesn’t approve.

      The worldwide ratification process is expected to take three or four years.

  5. DouggieJ says:

    A treaty is just like a law except it can be passed by the president and senate without the house. It can’t be unconstitutional.

  6. Alain41 says:

    And in other world org. news, WHO (world health org.) has announced that doctors have ended their voluntary research moratorium on the h5n1 avian flu virus.

You must be logged in to post a comment.