Finding the dark lining inside every ray of hope

[ahem. Forgive that metaphor slaughter, there.]

But the new mercury regulations, being hailed as an environmental victory by the Bush administration, are only the "best obtainable" if you ignore conflicting data (or, as usual, the scientific consensus, and heck, the EPA's own study).

"They are saying if they fail to regulate mercury from power plants at all, it really wouldn't make a difference," said John Walke, clean air director with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "To acknowledge the real benefits would be to raise the next question: Why didn't you go further?"

For example, the administration's figures chose to ignore the mercury contributions from consumption of salt-water fish (such as tuna), even though that's a source of something like 2/3 of most folks' exposure. You woudn't want to use data in setting policy, or at least not data that weights public health above corporate profits...

(via pandagon)

Update: as usual, The Onion nails this one exactly: EPA to drop 'E,' 'P' from name