Stockton Standing Up -

You CAN make a difference	Please support us. Click here to donate.

Cleaning up port pollution will benefit our community and our health

Published on www.coalitionforcleanair.org on 08/10/05

Cleaning up port pollution will benefit our community and our health

August 10, 2005

by Tom Plenys, Gail Ruderman Feuer, and Norman Tuck

How would you like to double your money in five years with an investment that makes Los Angeles a healthier place to live? That is exactly the opportunity presented by the “No Net Increase” plan to reduce air pollution from the Port of Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that toxic diesel emissions from the port, which blanket much of the city, have increased more than 60 percent since 2001. Unless we cap those emissions, our rapidly growing port will further damage public health – and eventually smother our economy.

A detailed plan to roll back port emissions to 2001 levels, even as cargo volume triples as expected in the next 20 years, now sits on the desk of Mayor Villaraigosa. The mayor signaled his commitment to clean up the port last week when he appointed strong environmentalists to the commission that oversees the port. Now the mayor should take the next step – approve the “No Net Increase” plan’s pollution control measures, and send the plan to the port commission to be implemented.

The plan makes both public health and economic sense for Los Angeles. According to the California Air Resources Board, the plan will prevent 2,200 premature deaths from air pollution over the next 20 years, and in the short-term, will save $1.4 billion in health care costs and reduced productivity from illness. That’s a 100 percent return on the $700 million investment the plan requires over five years. And just like soot from the port, the economic benefits will reach every corner of the greater-Los Angeles area.

How can the port cut pollution while expanding operations? One example is by converting to alternative marine power (AMP), a system which enables massive container ships to plug into dockside electric power, instead of running filthy diesel generators. Ships docking at the port’s new China Shipping terminal, the world’s first “green” container terminal, already use AMP, and it cuts a ton of air pollution every day for each ship that plugs in. Expanding AMP and switching the port’s ships, trucks, trains, and dock equipment to cleaner fuels would slash many tons of pollution daily.

The “No Net Increase” plan can be funded by the port’s own growth – the very thing that makes pollution controls necessary. For example, state Sen. Alan Lowenthal has proposed legislation, SB 760, under which more than $400 million could be generated, over the next five years, to lower air pollution from the Port of Los Angeles. This bill would collect a $30 fee for every shipping container passing through the ports, a third of which could go towards funding measures like those in the No Net Increase Plan, and the rest of which would go towards increasing port security and relieving traffic congestion. This fee wouldn’t make a noticeable difference to the price of goods. But it would make an enormous difference to the health of city residents. Considering that thousands, or tens of thousands, of products fit inside each single shipping container, this fee would add mere pennies to the cost of a DVD player passing through the port. Certainly the lives and lungs of Los Angeles residents are worth this investment.

Today, Angelenos subsidize the cost of goods shipped through our port with our health. And for what? Some 60 percent of that cargo is destined for consumers outside of Southern California. That means we pay a price in health so people in other cities can buy cheaper imported goods. The recent finding of the Public Policy Institute of California is not surprising: nearly three out of four L.A.-area residents favor tougher pollution controls for cargo ships, trucks, and trains even if they raise the cost of transporting goods.

Even if pollution levels return to what they were in 2001, as proposed under the No Net Increase plan, communities surrounding the port would still face alarming levels of cancer risk, according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Notably, neighboring Long Beach has no plan to cap deadly diesel pollution from its port. Port expansion should not be at the expense of those who work the docks or live nearby. With intelligent planning, we can gradually expand cargo capacity while cutting pollution levels. The plan to do that sits on the desk of our new mayor, who came to office with a strong track record of protecting public health and the environment.

Mr. Mayor, please pick up your pen.

Gail Ruderman Feuer, Director, Natural Resources Defense Council Southern California Air Project, Tom Plenys, Research Manager, Coalition for Clean Air, and Norman Tuck, Member of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 13. Ms. Feuer and Mr. Tuck served on the No Net Increase Task Force.

Use your browser BACK button to return, or click on a link below.