Adrian Martinez's Blog: Health and the Environment

Mayor Villaraigosa, Let’s Promote Biking and Walking in Los Angeles

2010-05-01T03:27:53Z

LA Streetsblog today posted an article about Los Angeles’ Mayor Villaraigosa promoting more biking and walking. This is very smart thinking for the Mayor of the city that ranks highest on the list for ozone pollution, traffic congestion, and fuel wasted from congestion. We need to think hard about creating more viable, less-polluting transportation options in Los Angeles.

Conveniently, there is an upcoming opportunity to do something about it. The Department of Transportation recently released its second round of criteria for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). This program provides a unique opportunity for Los Angeles to find dollars for biking and walking projects.

For example, in the last round of TIGER grants, the Department of Transportation provided $23 million for the Philadelphia Area Pedestrian and Bike Network. The Department of Transportation provided the following description of the project—

The overall project will repair, reconstruct and improve 16.3 miles of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that will complete a 128-mile regional network in six counties around Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey. TIGER funds will be used to improve the primary commuter routes closest to downtown, in some of the communities hardest hit by the current economic downturn including Southwest Philadelphia and Camden, NJ. Non-motorized commuting options will connect residents in these areas to more prosperous communities that provide employment opportunities, including Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, NJ.

These are the types of projects we should be pushing in Los Angeles if we want to execute the Mayor's vision of more biking and walking. The guidelines for the next round of TIGER grants will use “Innovation” and “Partnership” as criteria. What is more innovative than pushing non-auto travel in the nation’s smoggiest city? Also, what about the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District partnering together on a biking/walking project that promotes non-auto travel, fights obesity, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces air pollution? I just hope our agencies in Los Angeles aren't afraid of the TIGER this time around.

California Tops the List for Filthy Air

2010-04-28T21:38:44Z

The American Lung Association released its most recent installment of State of the Air today. If trophies were awarded for securing top spots for filthy air, California would have a truck load of trophies coming our way. California secured 8 of the top 10 cities with ozone-polluted air. We have five of the top ten cities with year-round particulate pollution. Finally, we have seven of the top ten cities with short-term particulate pollution. This is quite an accomplishment, and this should serve as a call to action to our politicians in Washington D.C., Sacramento, and in cities throughout California that we need to do better. We cannot sit idly by as our friends, family members, and children are forced to breath polluted, unhealthy air.

While this California pollution epidemic poses severe health threats, it provides us an opportunity to rethink how we do things in the Golden State. There have already been significant efforts undertaken by the California Air Resources Board to adopt life-saving measures to reduce diesel pollution from trucks, construction equipment and ships. It is no surprise that all three of these landmark regulations have been attacked by industry lobbyists—to read more about the various obstructionists tactics used to stop these life-saving measures, go to these links: truck obstruction, construction obstruction, and ship obstruction.

Even with these measures, there is more work that needs to be done. For example, we need to continue to push cleaner vehicles and power sources. In Los Angeles, we need our decision-makers to stand up to the oil refineries to make sure they are adopting state of the art pollution controls. We also need to rethink how our transportation system works in our major urban areas. Instead of building road after road that will only exacerbate our chronic air pollution problems, continue our addiction to foreign oil, and drain our funding, we should support more efficient ways of transporting people. Finally, in places in the San Joaquin Valley, we need to make sure agricultural sources of pollution are reducing their fair share.

Beyond the public health and environmental justice concerns with our failure to meet clean air standards, we are facing big economic consequences. Dr. Jane Hall of California State University at Fullerton has determined that residents of the Los Angeles region are paying a hefty price for failing to meet federal clean air standards: $1,250 per person per year, according to a recent study she released. She estimated the cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is $1,600 per person per year.

So, in the upcoming months as our California political leaders and voters are asked to weaken air pollution regulations, delay action in adopting strong measures to clean the air, or fund bad projects that will exacerbate our air pollution woes, we should stand up and say no. The American Lung Association's report confirms that California needs to continue its leadership with precedent setting efforts to push clean air technologies and strategies. California has achieved great strides in reducing pollution over the decades, but this report confirms that we have a lot more work to do.

Ray LaHood, Secretary of Transportation, Makes the Case for Better Transportation Options Again

2010-04-06T19:54:50Z

Today, Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, posted an interesting blog entry related to providing more options for people to transport themselves. I particularly like the following statement he makes in the blog post--

That's why I told Green Inc, "This is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda; people want alternatives to the automobile."

You see, it turns out I'm not the only one who thinks America can increase access to public transit and safe walking and bicycling.

In the hyperpolitical Washington, D.C., there are going to be attacks to any proposed change from the business-as-usual approach. However, at the end of the day, biking and walking is not a conservative, moderate or liberal issue. People just need to get around, and our government needs to provide better options for transportation that can help us kick our addiction to oil. If I want to ride a bike, I should have infrastructure to do so. For example, in Los Angeles, there are some bike lanes that mysteriously end leaving bikers with no designated routes to travel. It's untenable to think projects that fix this problem and allow safer bicycle transport should not be funded. At the end of the day, bicyclers are at a disadvantage because they don’t have thousands of pounds of steel protecting them as they travel.

We should thank Mr. LaHood for continuing to listen to Americans and pushing this issue despite some in the peanut gallery trying to stop this more rational approach to funding transportation projects.

The American Trucking Association Gets It Wrong Again: Biking is Not Going to Hurt the Economy

2010-03-29T22:18:23Z

In a feat of hyperbole unmatched in my recent memory, Bill Graves, President of the American Trucking Associations noted--“I’m in full agreement with the National Association of Manufacturers, who said on their Shopfloor blog last week that ‘treating bicycles and other non-motorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe.’” Well, there are a lot of things our economy has to worry about, but I doubt there are droves of economists shaking in their boots over creating a more equitable approach to funding transportation infrastructure.

Let’s use Los Angeles as an example because the American Trucking Associations generally has a disregard for the health and welfare of residents in Los Angeles. One project in Los Angeles, the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement in the harbor area, will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion dollars. The damage and need to replace this bridge was basically caused by one thing—the constant number of trucks that have rumbled over this bridge and made it deteriorate over the years. You see, the environmental report for the Desmond project notes that trucks cause three times more damage to roads than passenger vehicles, yet it is those passengers that will foot the bill for trucking companies to have nicely paved roads and bridge. Now, I wonder how much more of an impact a truck has on a road compared to a bike.

At a recent meeting in Los Angeles, it came out that it would cost about $280 million to put in place all of the “shovel-ready” bike projects in the Los Angeles region. Currently, transportation planners in the region want to spend more than $1 billion on the Desmond Bridge, $6.3 billion on the I-710 South project, which is designed to allow more and more trucks to go into the harbor in Los Angeles and Long Beach, and many more billions of dollars on infrastructure in the Los Angeles region geared towards subsidizing the trucking industry. Despite the predictions from lobbyists at the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Trucking Associations, I seriously doubt we will see some biking-induced economic apocalypse if our planners spend more dollars fixing and developing the desperately underfunded biking infrastructure in places like Los Angeles.

Bill Graves has no facts to support his hyperbolic position, but instead the Virginia-based trucking lobbyist is simply evoking fear that bicycling may become a more effective means to travel in cities across the country. As a multimodal commuter, I want effective bicycling infrastructure in my community, and trucking companies should want that too. In fact, the Alaska Trucking Association had positive things to say about the Anchorage Bike Plan. Also, we are talking peanuts when compared to the billions of dollars proposed to be spent on earmark projects to fix the problems on our roads caused by trucks. I know it is hard for road builders and truck lobbyists to share the taxpayers’ transportation funds that they have spent so many billions of dollars lobbying for over the years in Washington, D.C. and states throughout the nation. However, the day has come for a more responsible way to fund transportation where Ray LaHood, our Secretary of Transportation, and others will ask that not all the money be blindly spent on roads to fix damage caused by big trucks. Will it help if Mr. LaHood says “please”?

Air Regulators, Please Adopt Our Highways

2010-03-19T00:54:35Z

The Adopt-a-Highway program has had success in removing litter from our roadways. Even though our roadways may be prettier due to the lack of litter, a harm related to roads exists that in many ways is more frightening. The harm emanates from the noxious stew of pollutants from the cars and trucks that rumble down our highways each day.

A barrage of studies have highlighted the major impacts on the health and welfare of residents associated with living in close proximity to highways. For example, a recent study from researchers at the University of Southern California (“USC”) found that artery wall thickening among people living within 100 meters of a Los Angeles highway progressed twice as quickly as those who lived farther away. Another Southern California study from the USC research team documented the impairment of normal lung development from long term exposure to highway pollution among children between the ages of 10 and 18.

This severe public health issue impacts many throughout the country. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 35 million Americans live within 100 meters of major highways. In the Los Angeles region, there are approximately 1.5 million people residing near major roadways. Thus, significant populations are suffering from the lack of action to clean up the air in our highway corridors.

But, we are seeing more and more attention given to this issue, and now it is just a matter of our regulators catching up. A recent article in LA Weekly by Patrick Range McDonald highlighted this issue through the lens of the stylish lofts that are popping up around Los Angeles near our major highways. I suppose the real question these days is how much more information needs to be generated before our agencies take serious action to protect the millions of residents impacted by living close to highways.

Fed up with a lack of action, a coalition of health, environmental, and environmental justice groups asked top environmental officials in California to take this critical public health threat more seriously. The groups asked that our lead air pollution control agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, work together to more fully monitor the levels of pollution near highways. Currently, there has been an unwillingness to even place long-term air pollution monitors near highways in California. Apparently, some fear that we might uncover a public health issue that may be difficult to solve. This approach is akin to going to a doctor and having that doctor not run a test for fear that she may have to prescribe some medicine. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the harm highway pollution is imposing on those living close to roads. The stakes are just too high.

Creating Jobs One Community Buffer At A Time

2010-02-17T00:57:11Z

It had been a while since I traveled down to the waterfront area of Wilmington, California. Most of my recent meetings have been in East Los Angeles or further North in Wilmington. However, last week, I had the good fortune to attend a meeting sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency related to Health Impact Assessments. On my trip down to Bannings Landing, a community center in Wilmington, CA, I noticed large stretches of green fencing. At first, I did not recognize what was happening, and I figured it was just another terminal expansion at the Port of Los Angeles. Then, it dawned on me that this was the construction of the 30 acre community buffer that had been promised as a result of the expansion project at the TraPac terminal. Masked behind large green fences, many people were working to prepare this 30 acre Harry Bridges buffer zone. There was even a sign on the fence with a number to call for those interested in a job on this project. This buffer zone would not have been constructed and would not have been employing people today if community advocates and environmental groups had not stood up to the original inferior proposal for the expansion at the TraPac terminal.

The key to understanding how this buffer came about requires looking back to the original TraPac project that was proposed in 2003. At that time, the Port of Los Angeles and the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to move Harry Bridges Boulevard, a street used by many diesel trucks, to further encroach into the community of Wilmington. Residents and organizations like Coalition for a Safe Environment, Communities for a Better Environment and NRDC fought back against poor proposals related to this project using the environmental process afforded by the California Environmental Quality Act. Concurrently, knowledge of the significant and potentially devastating impact of port operations on communities continued to grow.

When the TraPac project resurfaced in 2007, it came back in a much better form and included a large buffer area of 30 acres that will serve to provide some distance between the community of Wilmington and the impacts from TraPac terminal. This buffer will also provide a nice landscaped area to improve the aesthetics of the community of Wilmington, a community that has been battered by the negative impacts of port operations for decades. This mitigation project could not have come at a better time because it simultaneously improves livability in Wilmington and employs people at the same time.

Sometimes organizations, like NRDC, are unfairly characterized as opponents to economic growth. These claims are simply a bunch of bogus unsubstantiated rhetoric used to inflame emotions. I view the work that environmental and community groups do as essential to making conditions better and more livable in port communities like Wilmington. The Wilmington community should feel proud of its victory—it stood up to the nation's largest port and demanded that the impacts from port operations be reduced. Luckily, groups and individuals working on Wilmington issues have allowed me to work to improve the TraPac project to bring benefits to an otherwise disparately impacted community. And if working to protect the community from increased pollution concerns was not great enough, I also saw many jobs attached to our efforts to make things better.

Under New Leadership, Federal Maritime Commission Backs Down—Another Cavil Hurdle Displaced on the Road to Clean Air at the Ports of LA and Long Beach

2009-06-18T19:51:52Z

This week, the Federal Maritime Commission decided to file a motion to withdraw its lawsuit against the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's two busiest ports. Reversing, the Bush-era decision to thwart efforts by these ports to clean up the decrepit trucks that roam the harbor area and cause immense impacts to the health of residents was a great idea. I assume it was the leadership of Joseph Brennan that made this happen -- he originally dissented from the decision to throw roadblocks in front of the ports to stop them from cleaning the air in the first place. Chairman Brennan, stated it well: "While today's action remains subject to approval of the U.S. District Court, I am gratified that we have taken this step to clear the path for the Ports' Clean Trucks Programs." I assume it also helped that Judge Leon gave them a pretty rough thumping in denying the Maritime Commission's attempts to preliminarily stop the ports from implementing key portions of their clean truck programs.

Chairman Brennan was also probably concerned about the lawsuit because the Commission made a decision to intervene against the clean truck programs without complying with several federal environmental laws. Therefore, the Commission acted in an uninformed manner of the environmental consequences of its actions. Earlier this year, NRDC, Sierra Club, and the Coalition for Clean Air called the Commission on this and filed suit in District Court in California. If Judge Leon grants the Commission's motion, a large part of our lawsuit will go away. However, there is one piece remaining.

The FMC still has an investigatory proceeding that could force the Ports to "cease and desist" from implementing an agreement that sets a framework for cleaning up harbor area pollution. We hope the Commission will make the wise decision to stop this investigatory proceeding as well because it solely serves as an attempt to divert attention from where it should be placed -- namely cleaning up the filthy air in harbor area. At a minimum, if the investigation goes forward, the FMC should comply with federal environmental laws.

The Federal Maritime Commission Needs A Lesson In Transparency

2009-05-19T20:57:17Z

Back in October, the NRDC filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Maritime Commission related to the agency's review of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach's Clean Trucks Programs. Specifically, NRDC was interested in what spurred on the rabid attacks and scrutiny on these ports, and wanted to disseminate this information to the broader public to provide some information about why the Maritime Commission acted the way it did. NRDC has a long history of obtaining and disseminating important documents from government agencies, including obtaining documents from the Dick Cheney Energy Task Force. Primarily an agency concerned with shipping, it was unclear to us what external influences and other factors brought on the Maritime Commission's desire to put these ports' efforts to clean the air under a microscope.

Over the last year, the Commission filed a lawsuit against the ports, initiated an administrative investigation, and used procedural hurdles to delay collection of a dirty truck fee that was designed to raise money for cleaner trucks and spur deployment of cleaner, more efficient trucks in the harbor area of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All these decisions were made in closed session without review from the public. Before we submitted the request and even now, we continue to receive questions about the Maritime Commission and its efforts to dismantle the clean truck programs. Despite claims by the Maritime Commission, it has been less than forthright in providing explanation for why it got involved in challenging the ports' clean-up efforts.

Almost seven months after filing the FOIA request, the agency has put us in a position where we are forced to file a lawsuit to receive the information we requested. Public Citizen, an organization that promotes Health, Safety and Democracy, is working with us on this case. The Maritime Commission continues to clench onto these documents despite many affirmations by the highest court in the land about the importance of FOIA. The Supreme Court has said that FOIA was designed to protect citizens' "right to be informed about what their Government is up to." U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). "The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).

NRDC also asked for a fee waiver for these documents because of their importance to explain the Maritime Commission's unprecedented actions. Under FOIA, requesters are entitled to a waiver of fees if the disclosure of the information is in the public interest and not in the commercial interest of the requester. The documents NRDC requested are most certainly in the public interest because they deal with two of the most critical programs to clean up air pollution near the nation's two largest ports. In denying the request, the Commission put up blinders as to the importance of these programs and claimed there was no additional public interest in receiving the plethora of information they are not releasing. Also, the Commission denied our fee waiver request by creating a commercial interest out of thin air. Despite the fact that as a nonprofit, we have no commercial interest in the requested documents, the Commission claimed that since the documents might end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest, then we are not entitled to the fee waiver. Once the documents are made public, we cannot guarantee that they will not end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest. FOIA allows people to disseminate information broadly, and in fact, it encourages this. The Maritime Commission's approach would throw FOIA on its head by effectively precluding fee waivers for any public interest pursuit that may end up in the hands of somebody with a commercial interest.

At the end of the day, the Commission needs to remember the "Freedom" in the Freedom of Information Act. It is not called the OGDPDA -- "Opaque Government Don't Provide Documents Act." Hopefully, the Commission will see the light. It may take an order from a judge though.

Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

2009-04-04T00:54:43Z

I suppose the Governing Board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) was listening to the Judas Priest song, Breaking the Law, this morning before it held its public hearing on Proposed Rule 317. SCAQMD is one of the agencies that is charged with implementing the Clean Air Act in Southern California. Before the Governing Board today was a rule that would implement a requirement in the Clean Air Act that is triggered when regions fail to meet federal clean air standards. The rule only applies to the largest stationary sources of pollution in the region (e.g. refineries, power plants, etc.). Because Los Angeles' air is chock full with deadly smog, the region will not meet clean air standards for ozone by 2010. Thus, this fee provision will be triggered to help push the region to meet these clean air standards and reduce toxic air emissions from large, polluting stationary sources. This fee mechanism was written into the Clean Air Act nearly 20 years ago and should not come as a surprise to local polluting industries since LA's air has never met federal air quality standards for ozone. This is just the first time LA's polluters will have to pay the fee, as outlined in the Clean Air Act. The fee also doesn't kick in until 2012 and provides an incentive to businesses to reduce their pollution in the long run, which will ultimately reduce their potential pollution fine. Here is how the hearing played out.

Many industry lobbyists and businesses came to testify against the rule today. However, the most relevant factor related to the Board's decision to take a turn down illegal road was testimony by an industry lobbyist who claimed the Clean Air Act contained flexibility to allow exemptions for certain polluters like those that have already placed pollution controls on their equipment. Upon actually reading the text of the Clean Air Act, it becomes apparent that the lobbyist was interpreting what this lobbyist wished the law states, instead of what it actually states. While I would relish the ability to make lawful my fanciful interpretations of the law based on my whims, courts throughout the nation, including the United States Supreme Court, have determined that this is an invalid approach. Our court system operates in the real world, not some fanciful Alice in Wonderland state. In fact, I agree with one of the industry lobbyists who claimed the Clean Air Act provision is a "regulatory gun" that requires the SCAQMD to adopt a fee rule and does not permit exemptions for some of the largest polluters in the region. At the end of the hearing, a Board member asked the staff to come back at the June meeting with a proposal that allows exemptions for certain polluters. Stated bluntly, the Clean Air Act does not support this approach.

The Board has asked its staff to turn the Clean Air Act on its head. I understand we are in a recession, and I think adding a fee is a delicate, tough issue. However, the recession itself does not provide cover for people -- especially our government -- to break the law. If this were the case, we would have mayhem and lawlessness in the streets. The appropriate remedy in this case if the District thinks the fee is unfair is seeking a legislative change. However, I must admit that this is like a loser in Monopoly trying to change the rules near the end of the game to make the winner the person with the least amount of money. Here, the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board and other agencies took a gamble in not having a viable plan to meet clean air standards. Now, penalties are being put in place, and these penalties are tough for some. We are willing to work with stakeholders to help develop approaches that will minimize the impacts from this regulation (e.g. developing a program to help those small, highly polluting businesses that will be subject to this rule). We will also work with everybody to make sure the funds collected by this rule are distributed to clean the air in a fair, transparent manner. All in all, we simply want compliance with the law, and we will demand just that at the June hearing.

Desperately Seeking Green—Port of Long Beach Seeks to Create Mega Terminal

2009-04-02T01:54:42Z

The Port of Long Beach will shortly release its final environmental review documents for the Middle Harbor Development Project. My, how times have changed since the Pier J debacle of 2004. In 2004, "green" was a four-letter word when talking to the ports and most industry lobbyists about port expansion. Back then, there were claims that commerce and environmental and public health safeguards could not coexist. Now, industry lobbyists, the ports, and others have cloaked commerce in a large green cape. The key for environmentalists, like myself, is to look under this green cape to make sure the ports are doing what they say can be done to expand commerce while protecting the environment and community.

Now, I assure you I have not pre-determined my views on this project. I will review the plans for the expansion project, and then make recommendations on how it can be improved. If it is good, I will praise the Port of Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach and others will claim that this project is a lot better on environmental issues than previous projects. There is no doubting that this is probably the case, but the Port of Long Beach set a very low bar before. It would be like a parent rationalizing a D- on a report card as good because their child previously received an F. We need a project that is an A. The community and health concerns about port operations are so grave, that they need to be addressed now (for more blog posts on this topic, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Now, I want to provide a little background on this project. It is massive, and when I say massive, I mean massive. At full build-out, the combined reconstructed terminal will process approximately 33% more containers than the current throughput at the Port of Oakland, the fourth busiest container port in the nation. The increase in containers is the equivalent of inserting the Port of Vancouver into Long Beach. And, this is going to be just one of the many facilities that the Port of Long Beach operates. The project will cost $750 million dollars to build and includes a decade of construction. The factual predicate of the project is that commerce will dramatically increase at some point in the future -- even despite the current slump we are facing. I'm not clairvoyant, so I will not predict whether commerce will pick up in the region. However, whether it does or not, the Port of Long Beach must clean up its act.

Our review process for these projects is very transparent. NRDC is looking at the expansion project under the following lens:

NRDC will examine whether it includes adequate measures to protect residents from pollution from ships and locomotives. The region where Long Beach is located is one of smoggiest, polluted places in the nation. Dr. Jane Hall of California State University at Fullerton has determined that residents of the region are paying a hefty price for failing to meet federal clean air standards: $1,250 per person per year, according to a recent study she released. The Port of Long Beach is a major polluter in Southern California, and it must do more to reduce its share of the pollution stew that exists in this region. Besides, minimizing the air pollution costs that residents in Southern California are paying through our health is an economic stimulus that cannot be ignored.
We will work with allies to examine whether the project includes the legally required level of mitigation for community impacts, including air filtration systems for schools and adequate resources for health clinics to help alleviate the impacts from the tons of air pollution the Port of Long Beach spews into the community on a daily basis.
We will also examine how the Port of Long Beach is dealing with the attacks on the clean trucks program and the inability it has had to place clean trucks on the road.
Finally, we will be looking to see if the Port of Long Beach has adequately addressed the new elephant in the room -- global warming.

All in all, I hope the Port of Long Beach does a good job addressing the concerns of the community, environmentalists, and other stakeholders. If the project does not resolve these concerns, we will have to look into our options. All in all, we must go back to what Councilwoman Rae Gabelich said during the Pier J debate to measure the success of this project.

"This city has to decide, are they about trade and tourism, or are they about good, healthy neighborhoods and good quality of life?" said Councilwoman Rae Gabelich, who represents Bixby Knolls. "This can't be about progress and the almighty dollar. It's got to be about people."

It is my view that the Port can have it all -- e.g. good, healthy neighborhoods, good jobs and robust commerce. However, we need to ensure the people don't get short changed on this port expansion deal.

Another Ozone Study Confirms that the Continued War on Smog is Worth the Effort

2009-03-12T23:38:55Z

In the era of global warming, plain vanilla air pollution -- like smog -- sometimes gets pushed to the side. Some people may consider it the less popular sister of the homecoming queen (CO2). However, this does not diminish the importance of this pollution. In fact, more and more data is mounting up that creates a further call to action to fix America's smog problems. The March 12, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine includes the results of a nationwide survey that determines ozone exposure is linked to higher risk of premature death. Science Daily includes a brief article on the study on its website. Even with these alarming findings, lobbyists, including those representing the trucking, coal, petroleum, and many other industries, continue to fight tough smog regulations. This is despite the fact that we are losing a medium sized city each year to death from respiratory diseases.

"World Health Organization data indicate that about 240,000 people die each year from respiratory causes in the United States," said Jerrett. "Even a 4 percent increase can translate into thousands of excess deaths each year. Globally, some 7.7 million people die from respiratory causes, so worldwide the impact of ozone pollution could be very large."

According to these World Health Organization's statistics, over the next four years, we will lose approximately 960,000 people prematurely due to respiratory causes in the United States -- that loss over a four year period is greater than losing the entire population of Detroit, San Jose, or San Francisco. Thus, the stakes are high, and this is not just an environmental issue but a moral issue.

The New England Journal of Medicine study found that places like Los Angeles, Riverside, the San Joaquin Valley, and Houston are more vulnerable to premature death because of the higher ozone levels. The increased chances of dying from a respiratory cause can be as much as 50% greater in these most extreme ozone areas. Thus, we need even greater anti-smog leadership in these ozone hotspots. Places like Minneapolis faired better on the ozone front.

All in all, this additional study cements the fact that we need strong plans to reduce pollution in these high ozone/densely populated areas. The timing of this study is also fortuitous because it will hopefully help push the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to adopt a stronger standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act. Two days ago, the EPA, represented by the Department of Justice, asked for more time to review the controversial ozone standards it set during the Bush era -- for previous blogs about the ozone debacle from my colleagues at NRDC, click here, here and here. The court case stems from a lawsuit filed by several states and environmental groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. David Baron, the Earthjustice lawyer representing the environmental groups that challenged the Bush EPA ozone standard, identified EPA's request as "an encouraging step."

Luckily, many efforts to reduce pollution concurrently reduce ozone and climate change impacts. A recent NRDC report discusses just this issue -- namely how implementing California's landmark AB 32 legislation will also improve air quality and health throughout the state.

So, today, I am officially reaffirming my commitment as a soldier in the War on Smog. Care to join me?

A Failure of Asthmatic Proportions: Port Fuel Program Not Cutting the Mustard

2009-03-10T00:43:55Z

Today, the Engineering and Environmental Committee of the Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Long Beach heard an amendment to provide more money to shippers to clean up the filthy fuel these ships currently burn. The Committee pushed sweetening this handout to shippers by increasing the incentive funds by 50%. This program has been in place for more than half of a year, and it was the product of the shipping industry and the nation's two busiest ports concocting a one year voluntary program to incentivize cleaner fuels being burnt in ship engines close to shore. My colleague, David Pettit, blogged about this program back in January, and provides a good background on how the program works and who developed it. All in all, since David blogged about this issue in mid January, participation rates have continued to remain low. However, breathing from children and adults in the Long Beach/Los Angeles harbor area has remained the same. It amazes me that in these tough economic times, shippers would not take these handouts. I am confident most consumers would rush to be paid to use cleaner fuels in their cars.

Overall, the shipping industry continues to inflict its harmful diesel exhaust on residents in Southern California. The voluntary effort to clean up this pollution has been about as successful as a Bernie Madoff financial seminar would be today. I would not try to cure the Ebola virus by taking an aspirin. So, the ports should take the same tact when dealing with one of the largest sources of pollution in the most polluted metropolitan area in the nation. Ship pollution wreaks havoc on people's health, and accordingly demands a real solution. The ports should work quickly to adopt a tariff that requires the use of this cleaner fuel while we are waiting for the California Air Resources Board's rules to be implemented (and importantly to be in place even when the state regulations are implemented -- in case of a legal challenge). We have wasted enough time on a voluntary program that has not worked thus far. With the economy this bad, families can ill afford expensive treatment for asthma and other respiratory illnesses caused by diesel pollution.

Finally, I hope the shipping industry keeps this failure in mind as it decides whether to challenge legally the regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board to protect residents from deadly diesel ship pollution. Attempts to defeat these regulations could be disastrous for public health in Los Angeles and Long Beach. In addition, attempts to topple this critical regulation could trigger penalties under the Clean Air Act that will harm the region economically. At least the failure of the ports' voluntary program will show the shipping lobbyists that even when they are involved in devising a program, they still have problems reining in their own members to participate.

To end, this is not an issue of feasibility -- Maersk has been using this cleaner fuel off of California's coast for more than two years -- but rather it appears to be a continual failure by the shipping industry to realize that it needs to do its part to clean up our air. I challenge the shipping industry to prove me wrong.

LA’s Big Rigs Just Became a Whole Lot Sexier

2009-02-25T23:41:26Z

Hallelujah, the future is here! The Los Angeles Times covered the much anticipated event of the all-electric truck rolling off a Los Angeles assembly line yesterday. Asthma inhalers throughout the region probably trembled as 25 brand new trucks that release no tailpipe emissions were presented for the public to see. This is a major turning point in the fight to remove fossil-fuel burning trucks from rumbling down our streets, making our air filthy, and affecting public health for decades to come. The fossil-fuel burning engine has met its match in the form of the The Nautilus E30 by Balqon. I would have probably preferred to name it the "Diesel Crusher 2009" or some similarly aggressive name, but I suppose Balqon wanted the truck to sound more like a real product and not a demolition car.

This partnership between the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Port of Los Angeles that pushed this truck from concept to reality could not have come at a better time because the harbor continues to have some of the filthiest air in the nation. This move to electric trucks, along with electrified rail and a movement to other more efficient methods to moving freight, is critical to protecting vulnerable populations near our seaports, railyards, and adjacent to our freight corridors. Also, the industries that move our nation's freight need to be put on notice that their constant statements doubting the viability of electric truck technologies need to stop. The technology is here, so let's figure out a way to use it.

This effort also marks a glimpse into the future of how green business can be good business. It is no secret that the City of Los Angeles through the leadership of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Janice Hahn see the all-electric truck as a way to clean up the harbor area, but also to boost the local economy by producing this equipment here. Convincing the company to move to Harbor City and negotiating for a $1,000 royalty for each truck sold to parties beyond the Port of Los Angeles is a good move.

All in all, Tuesday, February 24, 2009 will be an important day for clean air in Los Angeles. But let's not rest on our laurels--there are still several issues that need to be addressed such as ensuring these trucks are powered by renewable energy and making the market for these trucks larger. So, I now will raise a higher challenge to the air district and the port. I challenge these agencies to get 2,500 of these trucks on the road by this time next year. From what I know about Mayor Villaraigosa, David Freeman and the South Coast AQMD Board, this is a challenge that they are willing to accept.

Warm Welcome for the Clean Truck Fee at the Ports

2009-02-19T19:46:27Z

After years of waiting, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach started collecting a container fee to fund cleaner trucks yesterday. To the best of my knowledge, the ports are still operating, and the sky has not fallen as some doomsday forecasters suggested would happen when the container fee kicked into full gear. This is a momentous occasion because health and environmental justice groups for years have been pushing for a concept that polluters should pay for the clean up of toxic air pollution, and these costs should not be born by harbor area children with asthma, families losing relatives prematurely due to severe air pollution, or the myriad of other impacts that port operations impose on residents. Efforts to pass state container fee legislation have been vetoed by the Governor, so this makes the local fee that much more important.

Despite increased scrutiny by the Federal Maritime Commission, the Ports have forged ahead to create a more appropriate system to ensure the right people are paying for clean trucks-namely the shippers and their clients. I actually think it is a good idea that the Federal Maritime Commission is taking the following actions:

The FMC also determined to require the Parties to the Port Fees Service Agreement to file special monitoring reports with the Commission. These reports will allow the Commission to closely monitor the on-going operation of the Clean Truck Fee collection process to assess the Fee's impact on the San Pedro Bay drayage industry and the American shippers and consumers served by that industry.

Perhaps, by monitoring the polluting industry that operates out of the ports, the Maritime Commission will realize that it needs to serve the public interest, not the parochial interests of a few dissenting members of industry. Understanding that there needs to be appropriate economic incentives in place to make the trucking industry more accountable and sustainable instead of an industry that treats the community and the environment as its dumping ground is important for our officials in Washington D.C. to understand. Hopefully, the agency will get this picture by monitoring the port trucking system.

All in all, I feel proud to have worked with the ports, local officials, environmentalists, health advocates, environmental justice advocates, labor advocates, and industry advocates in advancing a program that places the economic incentives in the right place. Despite some in industry kicking and screaming along the way, the ports prevailed in finally assessing a fee to fund clean trucks. With a clean truck fee in place, I expect to see fewer decrepit trucks in the harbor area and more trucks that are newer, cleaner and less damaging to the environment and surrounding community. This effort could not have come at a better time because the trucking companies that have stepped up to the plate to be more accountable need this infusion of money to ensure cleaner operations.

Are LA’s Transportation Planners Living in a Fairy Tale Land?

2009-02-04T22:24:30Z

I attended the Project Committee meeting for the I-710 project last week. This Committee directs how the future expansion project for the I-710 should proceed. For those of you not familiar with Southern California traffic, but have heard the horror stories, the I-710 is the major artery leading to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It has amongst the highest percentage in the nation of diesel-belching big rigs driving down it every day -- literally thousands of dilapidated trucks scream down its lanes daily. Those unlucky enough to travel the I-710 can see the truck exhaust come out of the tailpipe. However, researchers at Universities in Southern California discovered that the pollution does not simply remain in the freeway corridors, and areas immediately adjacent to highways have exceptionally high levels of fine particulate levels too. A public letter today to transportation planners at the Southern California Association of Governments from a broad array of environmental groups, environmental justice groups, and public health groups used this research to indicate the potential havoc that is being wreaked by this public health issue in communities near highways throughout the region. The letter submitted states --

The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") recognizes that "air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas." EPA estimates that in a moderate sized city, particle pollution causes 25 to 50 increased deaths for each 0.5 mg/m3 above the national standard. The studies conducted in the L.A. basin show that concentrations of black carbon (one of the most hazardous components of the fine particles) downwind from highways with heavy truck traffic can be 12-13 mg/m3 times greater than concentrations found in urban air upwind of the highways. Particle concentrations greater than the regional average are measured at least 300 meters from heavily trafficked highways. In the four county Los Angeles air basin, census data show that approximately 1.5 million residents live within 300 meters of major freeways. Using EPA's methodology, for these 1.5 million Angelinos living in this high pollution zone, increased mortality is estimated to range from 300 to 500 deaths per year.

Despite this troubling scientific evidence, the quest for clean air in the basin appears to be a joke for some. In jest during the meeting on Thursday night, several decision-makers on how the I-710 expansion project should proceed mentioned that they wish they had a "clean air fairy" that could come forward and clean up the toxic mess that is air quality near areas where diesel equipment is highly concentrated (e.g. highways, ports, etc). The implication from their tone was that environmental and environmental justice advocates are living in a mythical world in desiring clean, healthy air for all Angelinos. Despite these attempts to diminish the advocates' message, they mentioned that our region is doing the best it can. This led me to question whether that is in fact true. Are we in fact doing the best we can?

Upon thinking about the current direction of the I-710 project is taking and other projects like the SR-47 (another pollution-plagued thoroughfare in LA), it is becoming clearer that we are not doing our best. As debates are brewing in D.C. about adding more and more funds for capital-intensive highway expansion projects, this issue becomes more critical. Our transportation planners continue to desire to add freeway lanes by default throughout communities in the basin, and I am left wondering how we will reduce our severe air pollution problems in the region, battle climate change, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The letter sent today lays out several alternatives that could be used to dramatically reduce pollution, including electrified trucks, electrified rail, and implementation of an advanced container transport system. These are the technologies that our leaders need to be implementing and laying the groundwork for now instead of continuing the stale tactic of continuously adding highway lanes.

I recall the day in my childhood when someone alleged that the Tooth Fairy did not exist. I denied these assertions and still believed in this mythical being because I did not want to lose out on cash under my pillow. Like my childhood self, our region is in denial that its actions are not exacerbating LA's notorious air pollution problems. The impacts of this denial are far greater than losing a couple of bucks under a pillow. We are left with premature death, asthma attacks, children missing school days, and many other chronic problems. That is a lot to lay our head on at night. So, I encourage our planners and air quality agencies to work with NRDC and other groups to realize that we do not live in a fairy tale land where someone can wave a wand and our pollution disappears. Our air pollution woes are real and deserve real attention and solutions.