International Policies on Pollution: A Work in ProgressKerriann Britt, Department of International Studies, College of Arts and Sciences and Honors College

Faculty Mentor: Marcia Staff, Department of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Law, College of Business

Since childhood, my generation has heard about global warming and the damaging effects of pollution. If we act now, we can slow the effects of global warming. This will take dedication from the entire globe, since it affects every human being on the planet. I decided to study what policies were related to businesses and pollution on a worldwide scale. Analysis of these policies will give me the ability to find the flaws in the system of regulations and determine ways to eliminate the loopholes that companies are using to continue polluting our world.

I will conduct a comprehensive legal survey of the policies that are currently in place to regulate business pollution. With that knowledge, I can establish a new policy that would hinder companies from polluting.

• EPA announced in 2005 that it was taking Big Coal off the hazardous air pollutants list (Goodell 144).

• In 2005, 14 states sued the government to have mercury listed as a pollutant (Goodell 145).

• With the United States being such a large country, it is no surprise that it is the world’s largest polluter, but it does not participate in the UNFCCC (Dolsak, 551).

• The UNFCCC was implemented to reduce toxins on a worldwide scale that lead to global warming (Dolsak, 551).

• “EPA scientists estimate that one in six women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her blood to put her child at risk should she become pregnant” (Goodell 138).

• The Clear Skies Initiative, a policy under President George W. Bush, was estimated to cost the coal industry $6.5 billion to clean up while yielding $93 billion in health benefits (Goodell 139).

• In a test conducted by Philippe Grandjean of Harvard’s School of Public Health, it was found that IQ dropped 1.5 points every time the amount of prenatal exposure to mercury was doubled (Goodell 142).

• If the coal industry were to pass the cost of clean up on to customers, it would add a mere 15-60 cents a month to the average electric bill (Goodell 143).

• Coal does not have a standard chemical structure; coal from the east coast is actually cleaner than in the west (Goodell .

Wendy K. Wilkins, Ph.D., Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Gloria C. Cox, Ph.D., Dean, Honors College Susan Brown Eve, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Honors College

Marcia Staff, J.D., Regents Professor and Chair, Department of Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Law, College of Business

Dolsak, Nives. “Climate Change Policy Implementation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.” Review of Policy Research 26.5 (2009): 551-570. Business Source Complete. Web. 15

February 2010.

Goodell, Jeff. “A Citizen Wherever We Serve” Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 147-169. Print.

Goodell, Jeff. “The Big Dirty” Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 119-146. Print.

Goodell, Jeff. “Infinite Needs” Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future.

New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. 97-118. Print.

Photos: http://healthandenergy.com/images/mercury_minamata.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pageworld/4164280348/

Graph:http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/mercupd.pdf

I believe that with the current policies in place, business pollution is not regulated enough around the world and I would like to come up with suggestions to correct this problem.

Abstract MethodologyLiterature Review

Hypothesis

Bibliography

Acknowledgements

Species Mean Concentration (ppm)

Range

Largemouth bass 0.52 0.0005-8.94

Smallmouth bass 0.32 0.005-3.34

Yellow perch 0.25 0.005-2.14

Eastern chain pickerel

0.61 0.014-2.81

Lake trout 0.27 0.005-2

Walleye 0.43 0.005-16

Northern pike 0.36 0.005-4.4

Mercury Concentrations for Selected Fish Species in the U.S.