Political appointees within the Environmental Protection Agency cooked the books on mercury emissions from power plants so the data would support policies proposed by the president. Scientists were given results and told to find justifications for them, the agency’s inspector general found in a report released Feb. 3.

Good science was shunted aside for good politics.

In January 2004, the EPA proposed new rules for regulating mercury emissions, including a cap-and-trade system that does not set hard limits on emissions. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of airborne mercury in the United States, and utility companies have pushed for the new EPA rules, which would make it easier and less costly for them to meet mercury emissions standards.

Once released into the air, mercury pollution can travel great distances before being deposited into water, where it can accumulate in fish and then enter the food chain. Mercury can cause brain damage, especially in young children and fetuses.

The inspector general’s report also raises questions about the EPA’s rule-writing process, which excluded groups opposed to the mercury rules and did not consider the full costs and benefits of other alternatives or the effects of the emissions on children’s health.

The proposed rules seek to implement the mercury emission standards contained in President Bush’s Clear Skies proposal, which is being considered by the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Despite protests from environmentalists and now the EPA’s own inspector general, the agency plans to go forward with its new mercury rules. A final draft of the rules is scheduled for release March 15.

It’s not the first time that science has been shoved aside by the current administration. The Union of Concerned Scientists says the administration is “distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels …” What happened within the EPA is just another example.

The EPA’s mercury rules and the president’s Clear Skies proposal don’t meet the basic standards of applying science and health concerns to environmental regulations. Instead, they are giveaways to industrial polluters.

The Clean Air Act requires that mercury pollution be reduced, but it doesn’t say how fast. The president and EPA should let the data determine an appropriate timetable. So far, they haven’t and that puts public health at risk.