state of the world 2006 · the worldwatch institute state of the world 2oo6 special focus: china...

THE WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE

STATE OF TH E WOR LD2oO6

S P E C I A L F O C U S :

China and India

96

The residents of Quaanaag, Greenland, areamong the most chemically contaminatedpeople on Earth. Their blood contains mer-cury at levels as much as 12 times the rec-ommended U.S. guidelines for this toxicmetal. That might seem unremarkable, untilyou look at a map. Quaanaag is a settle-ment of 650 inhabitants far above the Arc-tic Circle, accessible only by a 45-minutehelicopter ride from Thule Air Base. It haslittle traditional industry or employment,its residents see no sunlight for four monthsout of the year, and the sea is covered withice from October through mid-July. Resi-dents of Quaanaag do not create mercurypollution; rather, it is a “gift” from theindustrialized world to them. They areexposed to mercury in the whale, seal, andfish that they eat, even though they are liv-ing the same subsistence lifestyle their ances-

tors have lived for centuries.1

“There may be only 155,000 Inuit in theentire world,” says Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairof the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (anorganization that represents Inuit of Green-land, Alaska, Canada, and the Chukotka areain Russia), “but the Arctic is the barometerof the health of the planet, and if the Arcticis poisoned, so are we all.” Watt-Cloutier isexactly right, and Quaanaag is proof thatmercury contamination is a problem withglobal reach.2

Governments across the world increas-ingly warn people to restrict their intakes ofcertain types of fish to avoid excess exposureto mercury. Yet for more than a billion peo-ple, seafood is the primary source of protein.And restrictions can result in substitution ofless healthy types of food in diets worldwide.Despite the importance of fish in the diet, it

C H A P T E R 6

Linda Greer, Michael Bender, Peter Maxson, and David Lennett

Curtailing Mercury’s Global Reach

Linda Greer is a Senior Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. MichaelBender is Director of the Mercury Policy Project/Tides Center in the United States. Peter Maxson isDirector of Concorde East/ West Sprl in Brussels, Belgium. David Lennett is an attorney in private prac-tice in Maine in the United States.

is nonetheless hard to overlook the mercuryproblem as more countries conduct testsshowing extensive mercury contaminationin their populations. Experts estimate thatalmost half (44 percent) of young children inFrance and 630,000 babies born each year inthe United States, for example, have mer-cury levels exceeding health standards and areat risk of mercury poisoning.3

Furthermore, the threats posed to humanhealth by mercury do not end with contam-ination of the food supply. People are exposedto mercury from a variety of other sources,including their work (with very high expo-sure in some circumstances), consumer prod-ucts, waste disposal, and even health careproducts (such as dental amalgam, cosmeticpreparations, and preservatives in vaccinesand other medicines). Millions of peoplearound the globe are exposed to mercurythrough these and other pathways, which insome extreme cases can result in serious ill-ness and even death.

Over the past half-century, large-scaleexposure incidents in Japan and Iraq havefocused the medical community’s attention onthe toxic effects of mercury on human health.This body of evidence, combined with epi-demiological studies of the impacts of lower-level chronic mercury exposures through fishconsumption, has clarified what many hadlong feared: human health is compromisedsignificantly by very small concentrations ofmercury. Mercury contamination also pre-sents serious economic problems for thosewho rely on fishing, given that world fishimports reached $60 billion in 2000. Forexample, canned tuna sales in the UnitedStates dropped 10 percent in a year after thefederal government issued a new fish con-sumption advisory for mercury in March2004, resulting in $150 million in lost salesfor this $1.5-billion industry.4

Maddeningly, economically viable alterna-

tives to mercury are available for nearly everyapplication, as are control technologies thatcan reduce or eliminate releases from thelargest sources of pollution. These optionshave made it possible for the world’s moreindustrialized nations to substantially reducemercury use and releases, as well as occupa-tional exposures. However, largely as a resultof these changes, a flood of surplus mercuryhas entered markets in the developing world,often into uncontrolled or poorly controlleduses. The resulting releases pose large localrisks to human health and the environment aswell as contribute substantially to the quanti-ties of mercury circulating worldwide.

Mercury: A Toxic Globe-Trotter

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that interfereswith brain functions and the nervous sys-tem. It poses health threats as elemental(metallic) mercury—the substance commonin thermometers—and in other forms, but itis particularly dangerous in an organic formcalled methyl mercury that is found in fish.The populations most vulnerable to mer-cury are pregnant women (because it affectsfetuses) and small children. A child’s braindevelops throughout the first several years oflife, and mercury interferes with develop-ment of the neuron connections in the braincrucial to a healthy nervous system. High lev-els of prenatal and infant mercury exposurecan cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy,deafness, or blindness.

Even in much lower doses, mercury expo-sure may affect a child’s development, lead-ing to such results as poor performance onneurobehavioral tests, particularly those rely-ing on attention, fine-motor function, lan-guage, visual-spatial abilities (such asdrawing), and verbal memory. In adults,chronic mercury poisoning can cause mem-

State of theWorld 2006

97

CURTAILING MERCURY’S GLOBAL REACH

ory loss, tremors, vision loss, and numb-ness of the fingers and toes and can adverselyaffect fertility and blood pressure regula-tion. A growing body of evidence suggeststhat exposure to mercury may also con-tribute to heart disease in adults.5

Levels of mercury in the global environ-ment have risen sharply over the past twocenturies due to human-made releases, andthey pose increased risks to human health viathe food chain. (See Box 6–1.) As a result, thiscontaminant now endangers people on everycontinent, exceeding established safe levelsin various fish and marine mammals andthreatening the viability of wildlife populationsas well. In Sweden, for example, 50 percentof the country’s 100,000 lakes contain fishwith mercury levels exceeding World HealthOrganization limits; 10 percent of the lakeshave levels at least twice the recommendedlimits. Mercury levels in the blood of 93 per-cent of women in East Greenland and 68percent in Nunavut’s Baffin region exceedgovernment guidelines for protecting a devel-oping fetus from neurological damage.6

Furthermore, mercury is a classic globalpollutant. When released from a source in onecountry, it may be dispersed readily aroundthe world, depositing far from its originalsource of release and entering distant foodsupplies. The toxic metal evaporates in warmtemperatures and condenses as temperaturesdecrease, and it is highly persistent. Thesecharacteristics have led to surprising and dis-turbingly high concentrations in places wherethere are no significant local mercury sourcesat all—like Quaanaag. In addition, mercurycontinues to cycle long after direct emissionscease, due to its slow movement betweenthe oceans and the atmosphere and itspropensity to be re-emitted after beingdeposited on the land.7

The Arctic region in particular is a globalmercury hotspot, acting as a giant “sink” for

the pollutant circulating in Earth’s atmos-phere. Mercury concentrations are extremelyhigh in top predators, such as seals, toothedwhales, and polar bears. And the problem isgrowing: levels in ringed seals and belugawhales, for example, have increased by up tofour times over the last 25 years in someareas of Canada and Greenland.8

How has the isolated Arctic become soheavily contaminated? Researchers identifythree factors: the semi-volatility of mercury,which promotes its condensation in colder cli-mates as it circles the globe; the “polar sun-rise” at the end of the long dark winter, whichtriggers a unique photochemical reactionwith chemicals released from the sea (bromineand chlorine) and thereby delivers a dramaticpulse of reactive mercury into the Arctic envi-ronment; and seabirds that appear to trans-port significant quantities of mercury to thearea through concentrated guano (dung)


98


Mercury is predominantly released intothe air from industrial processes, products,mining, waste disposal, and coal combus-tion. It travels through the atmosphere andsettles in oceans and waterways, wherenaturally occurring bacteria absorb it andconvert it to a very toxic organic formcalled methyl mercury.The methyl mercurythen works its way up the food chain, aslarge fish consume contaminated smallerfish and other organisms. Predatory fishsuch as large tuna, swordfish, shark, kingmackerel, pike, walleye, barracuda, scab-bard, and marlin contain the highestmethyl mercury concentrations and areoften included in government fishconsumption advisories.

SOURCE: See endnote 6.

BOX 6–1. HOW DOES MERCURYENTERTHE GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY?

deposits in their nesting locations.9

Awareness of health risks from exposure tomercury varies greatly around the world.Whereas many industrial nations—includingAustralia, Canada, Japan, the United States,and those in Western Europe—have devel-oped occupational exposure standards andissued fish advisories to their general popu-lations, many developing countries have yetto investigate mercury exposure risks andthus have few if any policies or programs inplace. Meanwhile, recognizing the immedi-ate global threat, in 2003 the U.N. Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP) GoverningCouncil concluded, “there is sufficient evi-dence of significant global adverse impactsfrom mercury and its compounds to warrantfurther international action to reduce therisks to human health and the environmentfrom the release of mercury and its com-pounds to the environment.”10

A Global Inventory ofMercury Use and Release

Experts estimate an annual loading of about6,500 tons per year of mercury released to theatmosphere. In comparison to releases ofother polluting substances, this may seeminconsequential. But because mercury is per-sistent and never degrades, this annual load-ing accumulates in soil and water bodies yearafter year to levels sufficient to contaminatethe food chain.11

Mercury emissions have several majorsources: nature, coal combustion, and theintentional use in industry. Mercury is alsoreleased during mining—both primary min-ing of mercury-containing ore and as abyproduct of mining certain other metals,such as nickel and zinc. Coal combustion forthe generation of electricity is perhaps thebest recognized mercury pollution source.Mercury is a naturally occurring contaminant

in coal and is released when coal is burned,either at power plants and factories or, at asmaller scale, in homes. A recent investigationsuggests that coal combustion may be impli-cated in as much as two thirds of the 2,000+recognized tons of annual anthropogenicemissions of mercury to the atmosphere.12

On the other hand, although less wellstudied, there is evidence that emissions fromthe use and disposal of mercury in products,industrial processes, and mining and smeltingmay approach the contributions from coal.13

Natural sources of mercury pollution con-tribute approximately 2,000 tons of mer-cury to the atmosphere annually, about onethird of the estimated global total. Thatincludes degradation of mineral deposits,especially where geological events have leftthe ore at the surface of Earth’s crust; vol-canoes; evaporation from soil and water sur-faces; and forest fires, where burningvegetation releases mercury taken up fromsoils and atmosphere. Yet it can be difficultto differentiate between natural and anthro-pogenic mercury releases. Current releases ofmercury from soil and water surfaces, forexample, come from natural sources, fromthe re-emission of anthropogenic mercurypreviously deposited from the atmosphere,and from decades—or centuries—of min-ing and waste disposal activities.14

Some 3,000–4,000 tons of mercury areused around the world each year in variouscommercial products and industrial processes.The most important uses are for battery man-ufacture, the chlor-alkali industry (whichmanufactures chlorine and caustic soda frombrine), and artisanal and small-scale goldmining; these three uses account for up to twothirds of the global total. (See Figure 6–1.)Other significant mercury uses are found inswitches and relays, measuring and controldevices, and dental amalgam. Although thereis a good qualitative understanding of how


99


much mercury is usedin these products,researchers lack goodglobal estimates ofemissions from most ofthese uses.15

Batteries accountedfor nearly one third ofglobal mercury use in2000. Mercuric oxidebatteries (still prevalentin military, medical,and other applications)are 33–50 percent mer-cury by weight, relyingon mercuric oxide astheir electrode.16

Low-mercury bat-teries, which rely on the metal only to preventthe buildup of hydrogen gas, and mercury-free batteries are now available for virtually allapplications. However, there can still be sig-nificant amounts of mercury in button cellsand other batteries, depending on the typeand design. Even common cylindrical alkalinebatteries, especially those produced in olderfactories, may still contain surprising amountsof mercury, although on average they areincreasingly mercury-free.17

Several years ago, the United States and theEuropean Union (EU), among others,severely restricted the mercury content ofalkaline batteries and banned mercuric oxidebutton cells because of their high mercurycontent. Button cell batteries are now per-mitted to contain no more than 25 milligramsof mercury per battery in the United States or2 percent mercury by weight in Europe. How-ever, trade statistics indicate that tens of mil-lions of mercuric oxide batteries of all sizes arestill produced in and exported from China.The ongoing manufacture of mercury-addedbatteries in China for domestic use and exportcontinues to have a great potential to spread

mercury around the world.18

Because the mercury in batteries is encap-sulated, it is not typically released duringuse. But it can be released during batterymanufacturing and especially during disposal,when the batteries are crushed or brokenduring waste handling, burned in an uncon-trolled manner, incinerated with other munic-ipal waste, or left to deteriorate after landdisposal. The extent of contamination fromsuch disposal is poorly understood—all themore reason that it should be avoided in thefirst place.

The chlor-alkali industry, whose productsare used in various industrial processes, is a sec-ond important global mercury user, account-ing for approximately 800 tons of mercury in2000. The industry uses mercury to conductelectricity through a large electrolytic cell fullof brine, much like a battery conducts acharge. This sparks a reaction—further facil-itated by the presence of mercury—that sep-arates the sodium from the chloride ions in themolecules of salt and generates chlorine gasand caustic soda (sodium hydroxide).19

Mercury escapes from the chlor-alkali sec-


100


Figure 6–1. Global Mercury Consumption, 2000

tor primarily through fugitive air emissionsand lax waste management practices. Theproduction process takes place at relativelyhigh temperatures, which can facilitate releasesfrom valves and flanges, particularly from oldor poorly maintained facilities during processmalfunctions or maintenance operations. Thefugitive fumes are invisible and odorless andcan be detected only with special monitoringequipment. Evidence of releases, however, isprovided by the large quantities of mercury(hundreds of tons) the industry needs to addto its electrolytic cells each year to replenishmercury that has been lost from the process—substantially more than the quantities of mer-cury disposed of as process waste.20

Even while continuing to rely heavily onthe mercury process, it is clear from con-sumption reports that, on average, U.S. andWest European chlor-alkali facilities consumeabout seven times less mercury per ton ofchlorine produced than those in the rest ofthe world, a contrast that likely reflects impor-tant differences in equipment and mainte-nance regimes. Furthermore, ongoingreleases from previous disposal of mercurywastes around now obsolete and abandonedchlor-alkali facilities can contribute substan-tially to air emissions of mercury from thissource; many plants around the world havebeen in operation for 40 years or more, lead-ing to considerable historical accumulations.(See Box 6–2.)21

The mercury-based chlor-alkali process istechnologically outdated, potentially highlypolluting, and highly energy-intensive. Giventhat there are two mercury-free and moreenergy-efficient production technologies avail-able to the sector, many facilities have mod-ernized over the years and converted toalternative production technologies, and anumber of countries have phased out mer-cury-cell chlor-alkali plants or are in theprocess of doing so.

Perhaps the most important global sourceof mercury pollution is artisanal and small-scale gold mining. This practice used an esti-mated 650 tons of mercury in 2000, makingit one of the largest demand sectors in theworld. Since then, mercury use in this sectorhas increased; officials from the U.N. Indus-trial Development Organization (UNIDO)recently estimated the sector’s mercury con-sumption as high as 1,000 tons per year.22

Artisanal and small-scale miners separatetrace quantities of gold from soil or sedimentby mixing it with elemental mercury. Themercury amalgamates with the gold: the mix-ture of mercury and gold is heated, whichallows the more volatile mercury to escapeinto the atmosphere and leave the gold. A vir-tually unregulated economic sector, artisanaland small-scale mining currently produces500–800 tons of gold per year, nearly onethird of the world’s supply.23

A resurgence of artisanal and small-scalegold mining began in the early 1980s, accel-erated by the rising value of gold, which hasincreased a further 60 percent in the last fiveyears. The practice takes place all over thedeveloping world. It is estimated that thereare currently more than 15 million artisanaland small-scale gold miners in 55 countries(30 percent are women, and 2 million arechildren) and that an estimated 80–100 mil-lion people worldwide depend on these min-ers’ incomes.24

Oftentimes driven into gold mining byextreme poverty, artisanal and small-scaleminers have the potential of earning two orthree times their previous income. With fewexceptions, however, these miners do notconserve or capture any of the mercury usedin their daily operations; the price of mercuryis so low relative to the value of gold that itsloss is economically inconsequential.

With nearly 100 percent of the mercuryused by these miners dispersed into the envi-


101


ronment, the health and environmentalimpacts of this practice are staggering. Mer-cury levels are often exceedingly high, andmany miners exhibit severe mercury-poi-soning symptoms such as tremors, visionloss, and the inability to reproduce simplegeometric shapes. UNIDO estimated thatnearly half of miners in one case study wereintoxicated with mercury. In addition, localwaterways are often heavily contaminatedfrom these mining practices, resulting in fishwith high mercury levels that, when eaten,pose an extra health risk to miners and theirfamilies, as well as to residents downstream.This environmental contamination greatlyexpands the number of people whose health

is affected by these practices.25

To address this situation, internationalefforts have focused on the introduction ofaffordable and accessible technology that willhelp miners reduce uses and recapture theirmercury, including, for example, the use ofinexpensive homemade retort furnaces.Notwithstanding focused work by UNIDOand others, the scale of the resources availableto develop and promote solutions to minershas to date not been proportional to the scaleof the global problem that mercury use andrelease in this sector represents.

In addition to occupational uses and expo-sures of mercury from such practices as goldmining, the substance is also surprisingly


102


Spolana Neratovice uses a mercury celltechnology and is one of two chlor-alkali plantsin the Czech Republic. Located immediatelyadjacent to an older similar facility that wasclosed in 1975, it is responsible for releasingsignificant quantities of mercury into the envi-ronment. As a result, mercury levels in soil, air,water, and fish in the area surrounding Spolanaare dangerously high, posing a risk to humanhealth and the environment.

Although Spolana Neratovice has discussedpossibly converting to the non-mercury mem-brane technology by 2015, significant quantitiesof mercury continue to be used and releasedeach year. Between 1994 and 2003, for example,Spolana Neratovice produced over 700 tons ofmercury-containing waste, which the companydisposed of on site in its own hazardous wastelandfill. Since 1999, Spolana seems to have com-plied with EU mercury emissions regulationssimply by reducing its production to less than 3 percent of plant capacity.

Recognizing the need to identify the extentof mercury contamination caused by SpolanaNeratovice, the Czech Ministry of the Environ-ment commissioned chemical monitoring of

mercury at the Spolana plant and in the sur-rounding area. Between 1999 and 2002, thehighest concentrations of mercury were foundin fish caught in the river directly under SpolanaNeratovice, with one fish sample containing12.3 milligrams per kilogram (wet weight),which is over 120 times greater than the allow-able limit of 0.1 milligrams for nonpredatoryfreshwater fish.The typical concentrationsranged from 0.124 to 0.711 milligrams per kilo-gram, all higher than the allowable limits, mak-ing the fish unfit for human consumption.

In February 2004, the results of a study car-ried out by the State Health Institute monitor-ing mercury in the blood, hair, and urine inresidents of Spolana were published. Concen-trations of mercury in the blood of residentsliving near the chlor-alkali plant were twice ashigh as levels in people in a control group andin the rest of the Czech population. Further-more, the medical problems observed in localresidents, such as tremors, were disproportion-ately related to the nervous system, which istypical of mercury exposure.


BOX 6–2. MERCURY POLLUTION AT A CZECH CHLOR-ALKALI PLANT

common in daily life. Throughout the world,a multitude of mercury-containing productsand devices are in use, sometimes inaccu-rately labeled or unknown to most people. So-called silver fillings used in dental cavitiescontain around 50 percent mercury, for exam-ple, and are generally the largest elemental(metallic) mercury exposure source for peo-ple who have fillings. And while mercury hasbeen phased out in most infant vaccines in theUnited States and Europe due to exposurerisks, thimerosal—a mercury-based preserv-ative—is still used in vaccines in many devel-oping countries.26

A myriad of mercury-containing devices,including float, tilt, and pressure switchesand flame sensors, are used in a variety ofcommon products, such as thermostats, gas

ranges, and pumps. Millions of mercuryswitches were used to activate automobilehood and trunk convenience lights in Europeand the United States until they were phasedout. Mercury-containing devices also includea wide variety of medical and other measur-ing equipment, such as thermometers (feverand laboratory), sphygmomanometers (bloodpressure cuffs), barometers, and flow meters.In total, these uses added up to an estimated320 tons of mercury worldwide in 2000.27

As with batteries, mercury can be releasedduring manufacture of these devices, as wellas during waste handling and disposal. (SeeBox 6–3.) In particular, mercury in switchesand relays is often released when the productscontaining them are smelted to recover steel.Mercury used in dental offices, on the other


103


The evolution of stricter environmental laws in many industrial countries has created theunfortunate opportunity for companies toavoid expensive environmental improvementsby shifting operations to more relaxed regula-tory climates in developing countries. Becausecompanies have great flexibility to operateglobally, international laws are needed toencode an ethic of corporate responsibility andto harmonize standards for companies’ domes-tic and international operations.

In 1984, Ponds India Ltd. purchased a U.S.mercury thermometer factory and relocated it to Kodaikanal, in Tamil Nadu, India. Unileverthen acquired the plant in 1987 through amerger.The plant imported most of itsmercury from U.S. brokers, then manufacturedthermometers for markets in the UnitedStates and Europe.The factory reportedlyclosed in the spring of 2001, after local Green-peace campaigners, citizens’ groups, andformer plant workers revealed the company

had dumped mercury and contaminated glasswaste at a scrapyard in Kodaikanal, with thecontents spilling into the workplace, unbe-knownst to the yard’s barefoot workers.

Studies by the government’s Department ofAtomic Energy and Greenpeace Research Lab-oratories found extremely high levels of mer-cury levels outside the factory and deep insidethe nearby Pambar Shola forests. In an unprece-dented decision, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Con-trol Board ordered the company to collect themercury-containing glass waste dumped in scrapyards and forests and send it back to the UnitedStates for recycling and final disposal. HindustanLever Ltd., a subsidiary of Unilever, collectedand sent 262 tons of waste material to a recy-cling facility in Pennsylvania in May 2003.Despite orders from the Supreme Court Moni-toring Committee, however, overall cleanup ofthe site is reportedly not yet completed.


BOX 6–3. THE CASE OF KODAIKANAL: DANGERS OF DUMPING MERCURY-CONTAINING PRODUCTS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

hand, is released through trash or medicalwaste disposal, ineffective capture of mer-cury released or dissolved in office waste-water, wastewater sludge incineration, andeventually during cremation of individualswith silver fillings.28

Finally, there are other noteworthy uses ofmercury that are small in terms of tonnagebut nonetheless important sources of humanexposure. One is the skin-lightening soapsand creams that are popular in many African,South American, and Asian countries.Women using these products have beenfound to be substantially contaminated bymercury and can experience severe skin reac-tions as well as kidney and neurological dis-ease. (Note that not all skin-lighteningproducts contain mercury as their activeingredient; many products on the marketuse hydroquinone instead.) Another signif-icant source of exposure in some communi-ties is the ritual use of mercury, where thetoxic metal is scattered within the home, aspracticed in some Hispanic cultures.29

With estimated reservoirs of some 3,000tons of mercury circulating in the economyof the United States, and 20,000 to 30,000tons of mercury worldwide in such productsas thermostats, measuring devices, switches,and dental amalgam, there is clearly enor-mous potential for mercury release if thistoxic substance is not properly recaptured. Yeta substantial portion of the mercury pur-chased and used annually in industry is under-estimated or even unaccounted for inestimates of global releases. For example,emission estimates from the chlor-alkali indus-try commonly reflect only a tiny fraction ofthe mercury purchased for replenishmenteach year by the sector. In the United Statesalone, industry reported that it “used” nearly72 tons of mercury in 2000, yet acknowl-edged a 59-ton difference between this con-sumed quantity and the quantity reported as

released, reflecting what the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) has termedan “enigma” of “unaccounted for” mercuryin the chlor-alkali industry.30

Emission estimates from other sectors raisequestions as well. For example, emissionsfrom metal smelters typically reflect onlyreleases from the mercury impurities in theore or the fuel source, yet the mercury con-tent of the switches in scrap metal beingsmelted, which can represent a larger sourceof mercury for some plants, is not included.Waste disposal emissions are also likely to begreatly underestimated because they rarelyinclude releases during handling and mis-management, such as from breakage andcrushing prior to incineration and landfilling.31

The Global Mercury MarketElemental mercury and mercury compoundsare commodity chemicals, flowing freelythrough global trade. The last 40 years haveseen a significant reduction in mercurydemand worldwide, from more than 9,000tons per year in the 1960s to less than 4,000tons annually since 2000. This decline hasoccurred largely because various countries,particularly in the industrial world, have madeconscious decisions to decrease mercury use,such as by reducing or eliminating mercury inbatteries and paints and by converting chlor-alkali plants to mercury-free technology.32

This reduction in mercury use in industrialcountries has resulted in a glut of mercury inthe global market, which depressed the priceof this commodity for the last 15 years to only5 percent of peak historical levels. The lowprice of mercury has in turn discouraged theinnovation of mercury-free technologies, andits ready availability surely contributed to therapid expansion of artisanal and small-scalegold mining since 1990.33

However, a recent combination of


104


events—primarily reduced mercury mine out-put and low quantities of mercury becomingavailable from the chlor-alkali industry, com-bined with possible speculatory activities inanticipation of the EU mercury export bandiscussed later in this chapter—has sent mer-cury prices skyrocketing. From a typical rangepreviously of $4–5 per kilogram of mercury,the 2005 market has seen prices upwards of$25 per kilo. While substantial mercury sup-plies, especially from the chlor-alkali industry,are expected to soon become available, thesmall size of the market and the propensity of“market-makers” to speculate may lead toconsiderable future volatility in the worldmercury price.34

Recyclers, on the other hand, are rela-tively little affected by world mercury prices,since the quantities of mercury they recover

are generally limited. As hazardous waste dis-posal regulations have become stricter, themercury recycling industry increasingly makesits money by accepting mercury wastes ratherthan by selling the mercury they recycle fromthese materials. If not carefully controlled, thissituation could lead to abuses. Unscrupu-lous “recyclers” have been known to chargea substantial fee, ostensibly for recoveringmercury from waste materials, and then sim-ply store or discard the waste. (See Box 6–4.)Observers report that unlawful waste man-agement is a large and growing business fororganized crime, among others, who made 11million tons of hazardous waste “disappear”in 2001—and that was only in Italy. Theseincidents underline the importance of accu-rately tracking mercury and waste flows glob-ally, as well as the need for worldwide


105


Located at Cato Ridge,Thor South Africa usedmercury for vinyl chloride production until1987, when it began to also accept mercurywaste from the United States and the UnitedKingdom, ostensibly for mercury recovery andreuse.The mercury waste shipped to Thor con-tained 30–45 percent organic content, making it so difficult to manage that U.S. and Europeanrecyclers would be unlikely to accept it.

In fact, according to activists who havereported on this problem,Thor did not processor recycle this waste. Instead, the firm charged$1,100 per ton and then simply accumulatedthe waste. A 1994 visit by government officialsrevealed a sludge pond with 2,500 tons of mer-cury waste and three warehouses overflowingwith more than 10,000 barrels of mercurywastes, some of them leaking, rusting, or spillingtheir contents. As early as 1990, there werereports of workers “going mad” at Thor, andultimately nearly 30 percent of the company’s

workforce was diagnosed with mercurypoisoning. In 1999, high contamination levelsaround the plant finally convinced the Depart-ment of National Health to step in and shutdown the operation.

In March 2003, the government orderedThor to clean up its mess or face legal action.Activists report that after lengthy negotiationsThor finally agreed to contribute approximately$3 million toward the estimated $9 millioncleanup cost, though the company neveraccepted liability in any of the civil proceedings.As of August 2004, however,Thor had report-edly paid approximately $22 million to 38 for-mer employees, while another 41 are stillwaiting to be compensated. Activists reportthat the Department of Environmental Affairsand Tourism has been engaged to assist thegroup of ex-workers who have not been com-pensated, but little progress has been made.


BOX 6–4. UNEVEN REGULATION: THE CASE OF THOR CHEMICALS IN SOUTH AFRICA

coordination and collaboration to addressglobal mercury trade.35

Interestingly, although demand for mer-cury in industry is geographically widespread,the commodity mercury market is small inboth tonnage and value of sales. Since 1990,yearly trades of mercury and its compoundsprobably did not exceed $25 million annu-ally until 2005, when, as noted, the spike inprices sharply increased the market value oftraded mercury.36

The market for commodity mercury ischaracterized by a small number of primarymercury producers who extract mercuryfrom ore and by a slightly larger number ofsecondary mercury producers, who generatemercury as a byproduct of other miningoperations and recover/recycle it from var-ious products or processes. These actors arecomplemented by another relatively smallgroup of mercury traders and brokers,mostly located in the Netherlands, theUnited Kingdom, Germany, the UnitedStates, and Hong Kong, in addition to thosecountries with mining sites. All these “mar-ket-makers” buy and sell mercury, timingtheir trades when possible to influence mar-ket movements and hence profiteering fromprice fluctuations. Since 2001, MAYASA, aSpanish mercury mining and trading com-pany, has purchased and resold the mercuryinventories from West European chlor-alkalifacilities that have closed or converted to amercury-free process.37

Tracing the commercial flows of mercurythrough the global economy is, nonethe-less, extremely challenging. For example,

mercury could be recovered from a WestEuropean chlor-alkali plant, sold to the mainSpanish trading company, shipped fromSpain to Germany for conversion into mer-curic oxide, and sold to mainland China forthe manufacture of batteries, where the bat-teries could be exported to Hong Kong forincorporation into products for furtherexport worldwide. Furthermore, these mer-cury flows may change substantially fromone year to the next, and trade data—whether from Eurostat, the U.S. Interna-tional Trade Commission, or the U.N.Comtrade database—are incomplete andoccasionally inconsistent.38

Despite these complications, a carefulanalysis of trade data produces some veryinteresting findings. Figure 6–2, which sum-marizes trade statistics for commodity mer-cury on a regional basis for the year 2000,illustrates some important trends. Clearly,the developing world continues to use sub-stantial quantities of mercury. Eighty per-cent of the mercury used in the world is usedin developing countries, particularly in EastAsia, with 1,032 tons, and South Asia, with634 tons. While reported imports of mercuryby China have decreased since 2000, theyappear to have been replaced to some extentby increased Chinese mining of mercury andpossibly by smuggling from neighboringcountries. The European Union is the majorexporter, in 2000 shipping nearly 1,000 tonsof mercury to South Asia and the EastAsia/Pacific regions alone, which metupwards of 50 percent of those regions’needs. Comtrade data suggest that NorthAmerica is also a substantial exporter, butthese data include major inconsistenciesbetween import/export data reported by theUnited States and Mexico. China and Indiaalone continue to appear responsible fornearly 50 percent of global mercury demand.(See Box 6–5.)39


106


All these “market-makers” buy and sell mercury, timing their trades when possible to influence market movements and henceprofiteering from price fluctuations.

Reducing Supply and Demandand Mercury’s Load on

the Environment

Because mercury is globally traded as a com-modity, the mercury problem cannot besolved on a state, national, or even regionallevel. Even at current prices, companies trad-ing mercury will find buyers for it, regardlessof the local or global health and environ-mental consequences.

But there is one unusual and positive fea-ture of the mercury market: major sources ofmercury supply and demand are relativelysmall in number across the globe. This createsan opportunity for a well-considered strategythat can focus first on a handful of key sectorsin order to substantially reduce the overallglobal mercury load. Because of the globalnature of mercury, targeted reductions in thishandful of large uses will deliver widespreadglobal improvements disproportionate to the

number of sources addressed. Likewise, thestrategy can focus on major sources of mercurysupply in only a few key countries, which willnonetheless substantially reduce the entireglobal mercury supply. Finally, as previouslydescribed, the vast majority of the demand formercury in commerce originates in the devel-oping world, because the industrial world haslargely made the transition to mercury-freetechnologies and products.

Accordingly, continued and acceleratedreductions in global mercury demand do notrequire further technological innovations butcan be accomplished with transfer of existingtechnology, funds for conversions, and espe-cially political leadership to facilitate compa-rable changes in the developing world. Evenin the case of artisanal and small-scale goldmining, where there is no “one size fits all,”universally applicable, mercury-free techniquethat can be applied in all cases, people work-ing in this field are convinced a promptreplacement of the amalgamation technique


107


Figure 6–2. Elemental Mercury Trade in the European Union, 2000

is possible in many locations. Furthermore,mercury emissions can be additionallyreduced by improved gold concentrationprocesses and amalgamation techniques, inconjunction with a higher mercury price andrestricted availability of mercury, according tothese experts.40

It is crucially important that any mercuryreduction strategy ratchet down supply anddemand in a coordinated manner. This will

ensure that steps taken to reduce demand donot flood the market with excess mercurysupplies, which would invite mismanagement.Similarly it will ensure that a plummet in sup-ply does not trigger a re-opening of alreadyclosed primary mines to meet unsatisfieddemand. And since the global demand forenergy is expanding so quickly, an aggressivemercury control strategy for new and existingcoal-fired power plants is crucial to reduce


108


Considering the size and rapid development ofthe Chinese and Indian economies, it is perhapsnot surprising that these two countries are theworld’s largest consumers of mercury in com-merce. In fact, together they account for nearlyhalf of world mercury consumption—Chinausing some 1,000–1,500 tons per year and India,300–500 tons. Mercury emissions from largenumbers of coal combustion plants in bothcountries, as well as substantial releases frommining and smelting, particularly zinc smeltingin China, further magnify the contributions ofthese two countries to the quantities of mer-cury circulating in the global environment.

At the same time, western countries cannoteasily ignore the obvious connections betweenChina’s and India’s huge manufacturing outputand the insatiable demand for cheap goods inNorth America and Europe. Comtrade statis-tics suggest that Mainland China exported upto 50 million mercuric oxide batteries in 2004,while Europe and North America imported(and re-exported) a substantial portion of this trade.

Unquantified but significant amounts ofmercury (perhaps hundreds of tons) are used annually in China to make vinyl chloridemonomer (used in the production of PVC plastic), in a process no longer seen in theWest, as well as in small-scale gold mining. Indiauses large quantities of mercury in its chlor-alkali industry, which is heavily invested in the

mercury cell manufacturing process, using50–100 tons of mercury a year in this sectoralone. The list of additional uses of mercury inone or both countries goes on and on—fromthe production of switches and relays to mer-cury thermometers and other measuringdevices, pesticides, fungicides, and more.

Over time, however, and clearly respondingto international concerns, China and India willcontinue their efforts to reduce mercury useand emissions substantially. Regulations arealready in place to reduce mercury in somekinds of batteries. Some new vinyl chloridemonomer production facilities in China incor-porate the latest technology. A number ofchlor-alkali facilities in India are reducing theirmercury consumption, and a handful have con-verted to mercury-free production. Coal com-bustion facilities are increasingly under pressureto improve control of their emissions, andhealth care facilities are being encouraged toreduce use of products containing mercury.

Meanwhile, western countries must not pre-tend they have no responsibility in these mat-ters. Progress in China and India will be muchfaster, and all nations will benefit, if collabora-tive agreements are renewed and strengthened,technology is transferred, and internationalfinancial aid institutions are better funded andadapt in order to respond to identified globalpriorities.


BOX 6–5. CHINA AND INDIA: THE WORLD’S LARGEST USERS OF MERCURY

the global mercury pollution load adequately.In all, the reductions in the target uses

described in this section can deliver a 50-percent reduction in mercury demand by2010 and a 75-percent reduction by 2015,using calendar year 2000 as the baseline.These reductions can initially be accomplishedthrough a variety of mechanisms, includingvoluntary actions, legislation, and aid pack-ages. They can also include national, bilateral,and regional arrangements. Yet the need tocoordinate and ensure commitments fromall the significant public and private globalactors will require a binding, global agreementon mercury in the near future.

Table 6–1 illustrates how a focus on onlythree of the major sources of mercurydemand—batteries, mercury cell chlor-alkaliplants, and switches/measuring devices—canprecipitate dramatic demand reductions overthe next 5–10 years. These sectors each haveviable, cost-effective alternatives already inwidespread use on the market in the industrialworld to replace current uses. In the early1990s, for example, the United States andthe European Union initiated steep and rapid


109


reductions in mercury demand from the bat-tery sector. Similar government initiatives inChina and elsewhere in the developing worldwould achieve substantial reductions in thisimportant source of global mercury demandin a very short time.41

Similarly, substantial mercury reductionsare achievable in the chlor-alkali industrythrough a combination of improved man-agement practices and equipment at the worstpolluters in the short term and a phaseout ofmercury cell technology by 2015. Both theEU and the United States have made greatstrides in this sector that could be readilyreplicated in other parts of the world. Forexample, in 1997 the U.S. mercury cell chlor-alkali plants committed themselves to a col-lective 50-percent reduction in mercury usefrom the 145 tons used on average during1990–95. In eight years they exceeded thatcommitment by cutting mercury use by 74percent, even after adjusting for closed orconverted facilities. In Europe, the Conven-tion for the Protection of the Marine Envi-ronment of the North-East Atlanticrecommended in 1990 phasing out Euro-

Table 6–1. Scenario for Reductions in Global Mercury Demand, by Use Category

EU and U.S. Demand from Global Global GlobalMercury Use Demand, Rest of World, Demand, Demand, Demand,Category 2000 2000 2000 2010 2015

(tons)Batteries 31 1,050 1,081 81 81

Chlor-alkali Industry 167 630 797 400 0

Small-scale gold mining 0 650 650 650 450

Measuring devices,electrical control,and other uses 236 259 495 245 100

Dental 114 158 272 200 100

Lighting 38 53 91 91 91

Total demand 586 2,800 3,386 1,667 822


pean mercury cell plants by 2010. The Euro-pean chlorine industry association (EuroChlor) is on record as committed to a “vol-untary” phaseout of mercury cell plants by2020, “when the plants reach the end oftheir economic lives.” Nonetheless, indus-try’s voluntary commitments would be fur-ther strengthened by steady political pressureand continued scrutiny.42

Measuring devices (such as manometers,thermometers, and blood pressure cuffs), elec-trical switches and relays, and other assorteduses account for more than 15 percent of theglobal mercury demand, but there are mer-cury-free products comparable in cost andperformance to most of these, as well as legalrestrictions on future sales already in place orunder consideration in many states and coun-tries. Based on actions already under way inmany countries, phasing out the sale of theseproducts by 2010 is entirely realistic for themore industrialized nations, while a target of2015 worldwide is readily achievable.43

In addition to these measures, the UNIDOprogram to reduce mercury consumption ingold mining (with funding from the GlobalEnvironment Facility), combined with mea-sures to reduce the use of mercury in dentalpractices, can deliver substantial additionalreductions over the next 10 years.44

A reduction in global mercury supply thatruns parallel to demand reduction is criticalto a successful global mercury reduction strat-egy. Furthermore, the best supply reductionstrategy must consider the types of supplyavailable as well as the quantities of mercuryon the market, because not all sources ofsupply are environmentally equivalent.

There are four major sources of mercury in

the global supply: primary (virgin) mining,byproduct production (generated when min-ing other metals), surplus mercury from thechlor-alkali sector, and recovered mercuryfrom recycled waste and products. Primarymercury is the most problematic because itrepresents “new mercury” in the global pooland because the mining process itself releasessubstantial quantities of mercury pollution.Most of the primary virgin mercury miningoccurs in just four countries: Algeria, China,Kyrgyzstan, and Spain. China currently pro-duces mercury for its own domestic con-sumption, and thus mined mercury from onlythe other three nations is available for globalexport and trade. Although Spain has longbeen the largest single primary producer (seeTable 6–2), it has recently stopped extractingore. Currently the Spanish mine continuesto sell mercury from the processing of orealready extracted as well as from supplies col-lected from chlor-alkali plants closing or con-verting to a mercury-free process.45

Surplus mercury from the conversion ofthe chlor-alkali industry is the second mostproblematic mercury source because vastquantities are made available when each plantcloses, thereby threatening a flood of mercuryinto global commerce that could lower pricesand inspire continued undesirable additionaluses. Of course, converting mercury cellchlor-alkali plants is desirable, because it stopsan ongoing and unnecessary release of mer-cury into the environment. But because theplants sell off their stockpiles of mercury, theenvironment can still pay a hefty price. Anestimated 12,000 tons of mercury are foundcurrently at operating mercury chlor-alkalifacilities in the EU, 2,800 tons at the nineremaining U.S. plants, and 24,000–30,000tons at chlor-alkali plants worldwide.46

Recovered mercury from waste and recy-cled products represents a third significantsource of mercury supply. One study esti-


110


Most of the primary virgin mercury mining occurs in just four countries:Algeria, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Spain.

mated approximately 600 tons of mercury areproduced annually from wastes and prod-ucts, principally in the European Union andthe United States. The importance of thissource is also likely to grow as stricter recy-cling requirements are increasingly imposedin the EU, the United States, and other coun-tries in order to remove mercury from thewaste stream.47

Byproduct mercury is the fourth and leastenvironmentally damaging source because itis an inadvertent and impossible-to-avoid out-put of mining other metals. In fact, withoutcollection, much of the mercury byproductfrom mining would be immediately releasedinto the environment—into land disposal oras air emissions. Byproduct production willlikely become a more important and increas-ing source of supply as environmental concernsincreasingly dictate greater mercury capture atmineral extraction facilities.

Table 6–3 illustrates that it is feasible toeliminate primary mercury mining world-

wide by no later than 2010, while still havingsufficient mercury in commerce to satisfycontinuing demand. Such an objective is bothnecessary and desirable, given the substantialreleases associated with primary mercury min-ing itself. Further, if byproduct mercury pro-duction remains stable or increases modestlyby 2010, residual mercury from decommis-sioned chlor-alkali mercury cells would nolonger be needed to meet worldwide demand.The residual mercury could be stored pend-ing an approved permanent storage option byno later than 2010. Even in the absence of aworldwide phaseout of mercury cell chlor-alkali facilities by 2015, residual mercurywould likely not be needed to meet the muchreduced chlor-alkali industry demand after2010, and some mercury recovered fromwastes and products could be stored as well.48

Accordingly, a strategy that limits supply inthe global market by 2010 to byproduct mer-cury and waste and product recovery mercuryis feasible. Such a sharp reduction in supply


111


Table 6–2. Producers of Primary Mined Mercury in 2000–04 and of Byproduct Mercuryin 2004

Primary Mined Mercury Byproduct Mercury,Country 2000 2002 2003 2004 2004

(tons) (tons)Algeria 240 307 234 130 0China 200 435 610 450 0Spain 236 727 745 625 0Kyrgyzstan 590 542 397 500 0Russian Federation

(including Ukraine) 0 0 50 50 80Chile 0 0 0 0 20Peru 0 0 0 0 60Finland 0 0 0 0 70North America 0 0 0 0 170Other (Tadjikistan,

Mexico, Canada, etc.) 100 100 75 75 120Australia 0 0 0 0 30

Total 1,366 2,111 2,111 1,830 550


will help minimize the environmental impactsof the mercury trade as well as limit demandand encourage mercury recovery amongpoorly regulated sectors, such as artisanaland small-scale gold mining in the develop-ing world.

Since the global need for energy isexpanding so rapidly, an aggressive mercurycontrol strategy for new and existing coal-fired power plants is crucial to adequatelyreduce the global mercury load. To achievethis goal, international action should focuson installing best available technology formercury emission controls for major coal-fired plants (50 megawatts or larger) by nolater than 2012 and for all other coal-firedpower plants by 2017.

Based on the information currently avail-able, significant emission reductions can beachieved at coal-fired power plants at a rea-sonable cost through a combination of con-ventional pollutant controls, pre-combustioncontrol techniques, and the deployment ofactivated carbon injection. Conventionalpollutant controls, designed to limit nitro-gen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions,capture approximately 36 percent of themercury contained in the coal burned annu-ally in the United States. Pre-combustion

controls, in the form of coal cleaningprior to combustion, show additionalmercury removal rates of 21 and 30percent, and a U.S. company hasrecently developed a pre-combustionprocess that appears to lower themercury content of sub-bituminouscoal and lignite by as much as 70percent. These relatively inexpensivepre-combustion techniques shouldbe vigorously pursued in the globalmercury reduction strategy. Finally,activated carbon injection is capableof achieving remarkable removalrates. A recent EPA analysis indicates

that activated carbon injection can reducemercury emissions by 90 percent or morefrom all coal types and can be cost-effectiveand available by 2010.49

Moving Toward a Coordinated Global Mercury Strategy?

In 2001, the UNEP Governing Council, agroup of 58 countries empowered to makeenvironmental decisions related to an inter-national agenda, initiated a global assessmentof mercury. Nearly two years later, this ini-tiative produced a comprehensive evaluationof global mercury pollution and exposurethat concluded that mercury had caused “avariety of documented, significant adverseimpacts on human health and the environ-ment throughout the world” and that furtherinternational action on mercury was required.The Governing Council followed up byencouraging countries to undertake theirown mercury reduction measures, and itestablished a program to provide capacity-building for developing countries, hostingworkshops and developing guidance materi-als consistent with this priority. UNEP alsoinvited proposals for further measures to be


112


Table 6–3. Global Sources of Mercury Supply in 2003, with Scenario for Reductions in Global

Supply by 2010 and 2015

Source 2003 2010 2015

(tons)Primary virgin mining 2,111 0 0

Byproduct recovery 550 810 810

Waste and product recovery 640 920 750

Decommissioned chlor-alkali plants 277 0 0

Total 3,580 1,730 1,560


considered at its next meeting in 2005,including consideration of a binding inter-national treaty on mercury.50

The countries behind the various mer-cury proposals discussed in the February2005 UNEP Governing Council meetingwere divided into three camps. The firstgroup—the nations in the European Union,plus Norway and Switzerland—were themost proactive about the need for an aggres-sive global program to address the mercuryproblem. Their proposal was the outgrowthof a strategy the EU was developing thatlooks at Europe and the rest of the world toidentify concrete measures needed to addressthe problem. This strategy, finalized in June2005, consists of a series of actions intendedto reduce the global mercury supply. Thechief elements include a ban on mercuryexports from the EU by no later than 2011(which can be expected to result in the per-manent closure of the Spanish mercurymine), storage of mercury from decommis-sioned chlor-alkali plants in the EU, andrecognition that it is “essential for the EU topursue actions on a Community and a globalscale, that take into account the existinginternational legal framework as well as inter-national trade rules, and the adoption ofappropriate legal instruments.”51

On the basis of an earlier draft of this strat-egy (which was more or less completed priorto the meeting in February), the EU nationscalled on other governments to substantiallyreduce both the supply and demand for mer-cury through such measures as prohibiting theintroduction into commerce of excess mer-cury supplies, phasing out primary mercurymining, phasing out mercury cell chlor-alkalifacilities by no later than 2020, establishingmaximum mercury content standards for bat-teries, eliminating mercury in products, andimplementing a global strategy for reducingmercury in small-scale gold mining.

In the second camp were the so-calledJUSSCANNZ nations, led by the UnitedStates and joined by Japan, Australia, Canada,and New Zealand. These governments pro-moted a voluntary approach, largely throughthe encouragement of public/private part-nerships to be developed to address mercuryproducts, gold mining, chlor-alkali facilities,and coal-fired power plants. While the cre-ation of these partnerships is not inherentlyinconsistent with the EU proposals, the JUSS-CANNZ countries generally opposed pro-posals of a binding nature or even thearticulation of voluntary reduction goals in acoordinated global context.

The third group contained the G-77nations, including both India and China.They were skeptical of the EU proposalsbecause they cannot undertake many of thenecessary mercury reduction activities with-out a significant commitment of technicaland financial assistance that is not yet forth-coming from industrial nations or the globallending institutions. They were also skepticalof purely voluntary proposals.

The upshot of the February 2005 UNEPGoverning Council negotiation was a reso-lution that encourages the formation of vol-untary partnerships, asks donor countries toprovide technical and financial assistance todeveloping countries, and requests that gov-ernments “consider” the application of bestavailable technology for emission sources.Countries are urged to unilaterally take actionto reduce exposures from mercury used inproducts and processes (“when warranted”),


113


The nations in the European Union,plus Norway and Switzerland, were the most proactive about the need for an aggressive global program to address the mercury problem.

such as via prohibitions on use in batteries andat chlor-alkali facilities, and to “consider”curbing primary mercury mining and theintroduction into commerce of excess mer-cury supplies. In addition, the resolutiondirected UNEP to prepare a report summa-rizing global mercury supply, trade, anddemand, including in artisanal and small-scale gold mining, that would form the basisfor considering further measures at its 2007meeting. Accordingly, there is language inthe latest resolution to satisfy each of thecamps, but few concrete measures initiatedthus far that ensure meaningful progress in thereduction of mercury uses and releases.52

In order to create a healthy and equitableliving environment for future generations, wemust stop the circle of poison that mercury

use, trade, and pollution perpetuate. Volun-tary and aspirational international targets areinsufficient; no single country or region canresolve the mercury problem on its own.There are alternatives to mercury, but there isno alternative to international determination,cooperation, and action. As the authors ofthe UNEP Global Mercury Assessment reportpointed out in 2002, despite remaining datagaps in our understanding of how mercurynegatively affects human and environmentalhealth, international actions to address theglobal mercury problem should not be delayedfurther. Such measures are essential to humanhealth in all parts of the world, from New Yorkto London, Beijing to Johannesburg, andeven tiny Quaanaag, Greenland.


114


NOTES, CHAPTERS 5 AND 6

41. Quote from Philip Ball, “Synthetic Biology:Starting from Scratch,” Nature, 7 October 2004,pp. 624–26; Nicholas Wade, “A DNA SuccessRaises Bioterror Concern,” New York Times, 12January 2005.

42. “Futures of Artificial Life” (editorial), Nature,7 October 2004, p. 613.

43. J. Craig Venter Institute, “Major New Pol-icy Study Will Explore Risks, Benefits of SyntheticGenomics,” press release (Rockville, MD: 28 June2005); Davies, op. cit. note 39.

44. Private funding outpacing public from MarcAirhart, “How Much for Nano?” Earth & SkyRadio Series, at www.earthsky.com/shows/articles/2005-04_howMuch4Nano.php, postedApril 2005.

45. Rüdiger Haum, Ulrich Petschow, andMichael Steinfeldt, Nanotechnology and Regulationwithin the Framework of the Precautionary Principle(Berlin: Institut für ökologische Wirtschaft-forschung, 2004), p. 38; ETC Group, ICTA, Cor-porate Watch (U.K.), GeneEthics (Australia), andGreenpeace International have supported a call fora moratorium.

46. For more information on the proposed inter-national convention, see ETC Group, “Nano-GeoPolitics,” Communiqué No. 89, July/August2005, pp. 37–40.

Chapter 6.Curtailing Mercury’s Global Reach

1. Situation in Quaanaag described in M. Cone,Silent Snow: The Slow Poisoning of the Arctic (NewYork: Glover Press, 2005), p. 80.

2. Quotation from ibid., p 45.

3. Fish consumption from U.N. Food and Agri-culture Organization, The State of World Fisheriesand Aquaculture (Rome: 2000); French childrenfrom European Food Safety Authority, “Opinionof the CONTAM Panel adopted on the 24 Feb-ruary 2004,” Opinion of the Scientific Panel on

Contaminants in the Food Chain on a Requestfrom the Commission Related to Mercury andMethylmercury in Food (Parma, Italy: 2004);U.S. data from K. R. Mahaffey, U.S. Environ-ment Protection Agency (EPA), “Methylmercury:Epidemiology Update,” presented at the NationalForum on Contaminants in Fish, San Diego, 26January 2004.

4. Poisoning incidents in Japan and elsewhere,as well as impacts of lower levels of exposures,reviewed and summarized by National Academy ofSciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC),Committee on the Toxicological Effects ofMethylmercury, Toxicological Effects of Methylmer-cury (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,2000); economic impacts of fishing restrictions inJ. Maag, P. Maxson, and A. Tuxen, Global MercuryAssessment (Geneva: U.N. Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP), Technology, Industry & Envi-ronment Division 2002); recent trends in sales oftuna from Melanie Warner, “With Sales Plum-meting, Tuna Strikes Back,” New York Times, 19August 2005.

5. Health effects from exposure during devel-opment as well as during adulthood listed byNAS/NRC, op. cit. note 4; additional heart-related effects from Jyrki K. Virtanen et al., “Mer-cury, Fish Oils, and Risk of Acute Coronary Eventsand Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Heart Dis-ease, and All-Cause Mortality in Men in EasternFinland,” Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascu-lar Biology, January 2005, pp. 228–33.

6. Box 6–1 from Maag, Maxson, and Tuxen,op. cit. note 4, and from M. Bender, “GovernmentConsumption Advisories for Most FrequentlyConsumed Fish Contaminated with Mercury,”RMZ Materials and Geoenvironment: Mercury asa Global Pollutant, vol. 51, no. 1 (Ljubljana,Slovenia: Faculty of Natural Science and Engi-neering and the Institute for Mining, Geotech-nology and Environment, 2004); O. Lindquistet al., “Mercury in the Swedish Environment—Recent Research on Causes, Consequences andCorrective Methods,” Water, Air and Soil Pollu-tion, vol. 55 (1991); contamination in Greenlandand Baffin region from Cone, op. cit. note 1.


216

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

7. Mercury cycle from P. R. Mason et al., “TheBiogeochemical Cycling of Elemental Mercury:Anthropogenic Influences,” Geochimica et Cos-mochimica Acta, vol. 58, no. 15 (1994), pp. 3,191–98.

8. Mercury concentrations in animals from H.Skov et al., Fate of Mercury in the Arctic (Denmark:National Environmental Research Institute, 2004);increases discussed in R. Wagemann et al.,“Overview and Regional and Temporal Differ-ences of Heavy Metals in Arctic Whales and RingedSeals in the Canadian Arctic,” Science of the TotalEnvironment, vol. 186 (1996), pp. 41–67, and inD. Muir et al., “Temporal Trends of PersistentOrganic Pollutants and Metals in Ringed Sealsfrom the Canadian Arctic,” in Synopsis of ResearchConducted under the 2000/01 Northern Contam-inants Program (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Indianand Northern Affairs Canada 2001).

9. Polar sunrise documented in S. E. Lindberget al., “Dynamic Oxidation of Gaseous Mercuryin the Arctic Troposphere at Polar Sunrise,” Envi-ronmental Science and Technology, 15 March 2002,pp. 1,245–56; seabird contribution in J. M. Blaiset al., “Arctic Seabirds Transport Marine-DerivedContaminants,” Science, 15 July 2005, p. 445.

10. Summary of government actions in Bender,op. cit. note 6; mandate given by the GoverningCouncil of UNEP at its 22nd session/GlobalMinisterial Environment Forum, 10th and 11thmeeting, 7 February 2003, Decision 22/4–Chem-icals–Mercury programme.

11. Annual loading estimates from C. Seigneuret al., “Global Source Attribution for MercuryDeposition in the United States,” EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 15 January 2004, pp.555–69, and from E. B. Swain et al., “IncreasingRates of Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in Mid-continental North America,” Science, vol. 257(1992), pp. 784–87.

12. Sources of mercury emissions from Seigneuret al., op. cit. note 11; contributions from coalcombustion estimated in E. P. Pacyna and J. M.Pacyna, “Global Atmospheric Mercury EmissionInventories for 2000 and 1995,” Journal of Air

and Waste Management Association (in preparation,2005).

13. Emissions from mining described in Lars D.Hylander and Markus Meili, “The Rise and Fall ofMercury: Converting a Resource to Refuse After500 Years of Mining and Pollution,” CriticalReviews in Environmental Science and Technol-ogy, January-February 2005, pp. 1–36.

14. Contribution of natural sources estimatedby Seigneur et al., op. cit. note 11.

15. Mercury use estimates and Figure 6–1 fromP. Maxson, Mercury Flows in Europe and the World:The Impact of Decommissioned Chlor-Alkali Plants,report for the European Commission—DG Envi-ronment (Brussels: 2004).This chapter uses datafrom the year 2000 because these are now relativelywell documented and accepted. However, ongo-ing investigations seem to indicate that these datamay underestimate current mercury use as a cat-alyst in vinyl chloride monomer production and usein small-scale mining and may overestimate currentmercury use in batteries and the chlor-alkali indus-try, although there is not yet broad agreementon updated data for these sectors.

16. Maxson, op. cit. note 15.

17. According to National Electrical Manufac-turers Association analyses of batteries collectedfrom the waste stream in three communities in theUnited States, 66 percent of collected alkalinebatteries had no added mercury in 1997, while 94percent of collected alkaline batteries had no addedmercury in 2004, as reported in EnvironmentCanada and EPA, Great Lakes Binational ToxicsStrategy: 2004 Progress Report (Downsview, ON,Canada, and Chicago, IL: Great Lakes NationalProgram Office, 2005).

18. Mercury content in U.S. batteries is on aver-age 8.5 milligrams for zinc air, 2.5 milligrams forsilver oxide, and 10.8 milligrams for alkaline but-ton cells—see Lowell Center for Sustainable Devel-opment, An Investigation of Alternatives toMiniature Batteries Containing Mercury (Low-ell, MA: 2004), p. 12; battery trade statistics fromComtrade, U.N. Commodity Trade Statistics Data-


217

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

base, United Nations Department of Economic andSocial Affairs—Statistics Division, at unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade.

19. Quantities of mercury used in the chlor-alkali industry from Maxson, op. cit. note 15.

20. Although it is impossible to know for certain,the present consumption in the chlor-alkali sectormay have decreased to 700 tons in 2004, takinginto account plant closures or conversions to mer-cury-free processes as well as increased attentionwithin the industry to preventing releases andrecovering mercury from wastes.

21. Comparison of mercury consumption ratesfrom Maxson, op. cit. note 15; Box 6–2 from H.Kuncová, “Short Summary about Mercury inCZ,” ARNIKA Association (Prague: May2004),with data publicly available at the Web siteof the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, atwww.chmu.cz and at M. Cerna et al., Exposure andLoads to Populations from Surrounding Area ofSpolana Neratovice to Chlorinated Pesticides, Poly-chlorinated Biphenyls, Dioxins and Mercury (inCzech) (Czech State Health Institute, 2003) (Eng-lish version at www.szu.cz).

22. Quantities of mercury used in artisanal andsmall-scale gold mining in 2000 provided in Max-son, op. cit. note 15; more recent figures from M.Veiga et al., “Origin of Mercury in Artisanal GoldMining,” Journal of Cleaner Production (in press).

23. Prevalence and impacts of artisanal andsmall-scale mining from M. Veiga and R. Baker,Protocols for Environmental and Health Assess-ment of Mercury Released by Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Miners, Removal of Barriers toIntroduction of Cleaner Artisanal Gold Miningand Extraction Technologies (Vienna: Global Mer-cury Project, U.N. Industrial Development Orga-nization, 2004).

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Description of mercury in dental fillings inNAS/NRC, op. cit. note 4; mercury in vaccines

from U.S. Food and Drug Administration,“Thimerosal in Vaccines,” at www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm, viewed 11 August2005.

27. For a description of the many uses of mercuryin switches, relays, and measuring devices, andthe availability of non-mercury alternatives, seeLowell Center for Sustainable Production, AnInvestigation of Alternatives to Mercury Contain-ing Products (Lowell, MA: 2003); for a discussionof issues concerning the sale and end-of-life man-agement of mercury thermostats in the UnitedStates, see Product Stewardship Institute, Ther-mostat Stewardship Initiative Background ResearchSummary Final (Lowell, MA: 2004); quantities ofmercury used in these devices estimated in Max-son, op. cit. note 15.

28. Box 6–3 from the following: Kodaikanal,Tamil Nadu at www.greenpeace.org/india/campaigns/toxics-free-future/toxic-hotspots/kodaikanal-tamil-nadu; “Mercury Rising in Kodaikanal,”Shailendra Yashwant, at www.infochangeindia.org/fetaures17print.jsp; “Hindustan Lever Hood-wink Authorities and Begin Secret DismantlingOperations at the Deadly Mercury Plant in Kodi,”press release (Karnataka, India: Greenpeace India,9 July 2005).

29. Effects of mercury soaps and cosmetics in, forexample, M. Harada et al., “Wide Use of SkinLightening Soap May Cause Mercury Poisoningin Kenya,” The Science of the Total Environment,vol. 269 (2001), pp. 183–87; ritual use of mercurydiscussed in, for example, D. M. Riley et al.,“Assessing Elemental Mercury Vapor Exposurefrom Cultural and Religious Practices,” Environ-mental Health Perspectives, vol. 109 (2001),pp.779–84.

30. Quantities in reservoirs estimated in Maxson,op. cit. note 15, pp. 10–11 (numbers do notinclude the thousands of tons of mercury held inthe U.S. government stockpile or the20,000–30,000 tons held worldwide by the chlor-alkali sector); U.S. chlor-alkali consumption figuresreported by The Chlorine Institute, FourthAnnual Report to US EPA (Washington, DC:2001) (U.S. tons converted to metric tons for


218

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

purposes of consistency); missing mercury reportedin 68 Federal Register 70,920 (19 December2003).

31. U.S. mercury emissions from electric arc fur-naces may amount to 12 U.S. tons annually, basedon preliminary stack test data conducted in sup-port of an upcoming federal rule addressing EAFmercury emissions—EPA, EAF Area Source RuleConference Call Materials, 9 June 2004; see alsoEcology Center et al., Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury(Ann Arbor, MI: 2001); waste disposal estimatesfrom New Jersey Mercury Task Force, VolumeIII. Sources of Mercury in New Jersey (Trenton,NJ: 2002).

32. Trends in mercury demand reported by Max-son, op. cit. note 15.

33. Mercury prices reported by Maxson, op. cit.note 15.

34. Recent price spike reported by P. Maxson,“Global Mercury Production, Use & Trade,” pre-sentation at the European Environmental Bureauconference, Towards a Mercury-free World,Madrid, 22 April 2005.

35. Box 6–4 from the following: Earthlife Africaand Greenpeace International, Wasted Lives: Mer-cury Waste Recycling at Thor Chemicals (Johan-nesburg: 1994), p.8; Building a New South Africa,Volume 4: Environment, Reconstruction, and Devel-opment (Ottawa, ON, Canada: InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, 1995); EarthlifeAfrica, Thor Chemicals (Johannesburg: 1990); C.M. Fondaw, Environmental Justice Case Study:Thor Chemicals and Mercury Exposure in Cato-Ridge, South Africa, School of Natural Resourcesand Environment, University of Michigan (AnnArbor, MI: 2001); Siseko Njobeni, “Thor, StateLaunch R26m Toxic Waste Clean-Up,” AfricaNews, 3 August 2004; “Thor Chemicals to BeHeld Accountable For Poisoning Workers, Com-munity and the Environment,” press release(Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Groundwork, 12March 2003); Sharda Naidoo, “Mercury TimeBomb Piling Up at Cato Ridge—Draft RegulationsNeeded to Address Disposal,” Business Day (Johan-nesburg), 16 October 2003; Shareetha Ismail, on

behalf of Metallica Chemicals (Pty) Ltd.–CatoRidge, “Green Award” (letters), The Witness(South Africa), 15 April 2005; “MabudafhasiLaunches Thor Chemicals Clean-up Project,”KwaZulu-Natal (Durban), 28 July 2004. Linkbetween hazardous waste disposal and organizedcrime reported in Legambiente, Rifiuti S.p.A.—I traffici illegali di rifiuti in Italia—Le storie, inumeri, le rotte e le responsabilità (Rome: 2003).

36. Estimate based on the total value of com-modity mercury trades 1990–2004 reported inComtrade, op. cit. note 18.

37. The global mercury market players aredescribed in Maxson, op. cit. note 15.

38. Database of Eurostat, the Statistical Office ofthe European Communities, at epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=1090,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL; database of the U.S. Inter-national Trade Commission, at dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp; Comtrade, op. cit. note 18.

39. Figure 6–2 and general data on mercury usein India and China in Box 6–5 from Maxson, op.cit. note 15. Data on decreasing mercury importsby China and increasing mercury imports by neigh-boring countries during 2000–04 are found inComtrade, op. cit. note 18.

40. Veiga et al., op. cit. note 22.

41. Figures for 2000 demand in Table 6–1 fromMaxson, op. cit. note 15; mercury use in U.S. bat-tery production reportedly decreased by 94 per-cent from 1989 to 1992, see EPA, Mercury StudyReport to Congress Volume II (Washington, DC:1997), Chapter 4, p. 64.

42. Consumption in the U.S. chlor-alkali indus-try reported in Chlorine Institute, Sixth AnnualReport to EPA for the Year 2002 (Arlington, VA:2003); “PARCOM Decision 90/3 on ReducingAtmospheric Emissions from Existing Chlor-AlkaliPlants,” adopted 14 June 1990 by the Paris Con-vention for the Prevention of Marine Pollutionfrom Land-based Sources; Euro Chlor, “EuroChlor’s Contribution to the European Commis-sion’s Consultation Document on the Develop-


219

NOTES, CHAPTERS 6 AND 7

ment of an EU Mercury Strategy,” Brussels, 11May 2004; Euro Chlor, “Update on Euro Chlor’sCommitments on Emission Reductions and Phase-out,” presentation by B. S. Gilliatt to the EuropeanCommission, 16 February 2004.

43. K. Rein. and L. D. Hylander, “Experiencesfrom Phasing Out the Use of Mercury in Sweden,”Regional Environmental Change, vol. 1 (2000),pp. 126–34; EU Directive 2002/95/EC on therestriction of mercury in electrical equipment; seewww.noharm.org/mercury/ordinances for a list oflaws prohibiting mercury fever thermometer salesin the United States; detailed comparison of mer-cury and non-mercury switches, relays, and mea-suring devices and instruments performed for theMaine Department of Environmental Protectionavailable at www.maine.gov/dep/mercury/lcspfinal.pdf and the proposed strategy based onthat report at www.maine.gov/dep/mercury/productsweb.pdf.

44. UNIDO mining initiative described in Veigaand Baker, op. cit. note 23.

45. Mining figures presented in Table 6–2 fromMaxson, op. cit. note 34.

46. Quantities of mercury currently used in thechlor-alkali industry from Maxson, op. cit. note 15.

47. Quantities of mercury wastes and recycledproducts from Maxson, op. cit. note 15. Up to halfof this quantity may be attributed to chlor-alkaliwastes, many of which are retorted on-site inEurope.

48. Sources of supply in 2003 in Table 6–3 fromMaxson, op. cit. note 34.

49. Effectiveness of conventional pollutant con-trols from U.S. Government Accountability Office,Clean Air Act: Emerging Mercury Control Tech-nologies Have Shown Promising Results, but Dataon Long-Term Performance Are Limited (Wash-ington, DC: 2005), p. 1; pre-combustion controlsdescribed in EPA, Office of Research and Devel-opment, Control of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers: Interim ReportIncluding Errata Dated 3-21-02 (Washington,

DC: 2002); innovative pre-combustion processdescribed in KFx, K-Fuel™ Summary, available atwww.kfx.com/products/index.htm, viewed 8August 2005; activated carbon injection describedin EPA, Office of Research and Development,Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Elec-tric Utility Boilers (Washington, DC: 2004), p. 15.

50. UNEP Governing Council, GC Decision22/4, Chemicals—Mercury Programme, 7 Feb-ruary 2003, available at www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/mandate-2003.htm.

51. Council of the European Union, “CouncilConclusions on the Community Strategy Con-cerning Mercury,” 2670th Environment Councilmeeting (Luxembourg: 24 June 2005).

52. UNEP Governing Council, GC Decision23/9, available at www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/mandate-2005.htm.

Chapter 7. Turning Disasters into Peacemaking Opportunities

1. Basic information on Bangladesh from MikeDowling, “Pakistan and Bangladesh at mrdowling.com,” from Tiscali.reference, from “CaseStudy: Genocide in Bangladesh, 1971,” at Gen-dercide Watch, and from Christian Aid.

2. “Nicaragua Diversification and Growth,1945–77,” at Photius.com; “The Somoza Era,1936–74,” at www.country-studies.com/nicaragua/the-somoza-era,-1936-74.html.

3. Kemal Kirisci, “The ‘Enduring Rivalry’between Greece and Turkey: Can ‘DemocraticPeace’ Break It?” Alternatives. Turkish Journal ofInternational Relations, spring 2002; U.N. Devel-opment Programme (UNDP), Reducing DisasterRisk: A Challenge for Development (New York:2004), p. 73.

4. Definition of natural disaster, Figure 7–1,and annual averages from Center for Research onthe Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International DisasterDatabase, at www.em-dat.net (data continuously


220

state of the world 2006 · the worldwatch institute state of the world 2oo6 special focus: china...

Documents