David Pettit's Blog: Health and the Environment

Long Beach Harbor Commissioner Mario Cordero Speaks About The ATA Settlement

2009-11-18T00:28:00Z

Last night, there was a hearing at the Port of Long Beach about the Port's decision to settle the American Trucking Association case on terms that I think are so weak that they are a setback to clean air and public health.

Before the hearing, there was a demonstration outside the Port building by community members, truck drivers, clergy and others. Here is some video of the demonstration. Below is a photo taken at the demonstration by NRDC lawyer Morgan Wyenn.

Harbor Commissioner Mario Cordero spoke against the Port staff recommendation to change the Port's governing law (the "tariff") to make it consistent with the settlement agreement. You can watch the entire hearing here (click on the November 16 video link). But let me ask you to pay special attention to what Commissioner Cordero says beginning at about 2:32 on the video. I found it very moving. I'll conclude here with a rough transcript of what he said - his words are more powerful than anything I could say about them.

"Because my prediction is that in 10-15 years, it may well be that people who sit at this table and around this staff may believe that having all electric tugs, trucks will be a must in this city and in this region. So the question I have to counsel here preliminarily, the agreement essentially for us to do that, we need to have the ATA consent to that agreement or to that change? And that's another question again, however you argue on this, ultimately again the question is not just for the port of Long Beach, New York, New Jersey, Oakland, Los Angeles, you can go on and on, it's time that port authorities make that decision, not subject to consultation with an agency or public interest group like the ATA, who in my opinion could, did not care one bit what this freeway looked like back in 2003 and 2004. . . . .

"For me personally, I have another observation. You don't have to be a harbor commissioner, a staff director, a truck driver or LMC. Look who's driving the trucks. Ultimately that is a social issue here. Not to say that we're here to address environmental justice programs or issues. There may be an argument regarding the aspect of all this. But let us not lose sight, who's driving the trucks. I cannot lose sight of that because that's where I came from. I came from an immigrant family. And I came from a hard working labor father, a father who was a laborer. And all of us sit around here, especially on this side of the podium and around the desk, I suggest that we've all done better than our parents. These truck drivers remind me of the strife of the immigrant. And how that relates to the environment? Again, I'll ask you, look at the emissions back in 2003 and 2001. The average truck year, according to John Husing, was 1986. We had as many 1973 trucks as we did 2003 trucks in 2005 and ultimately you cannot, per this agreement, hold that driver responsible because that driver does not have, does not capitalize and does not have the means to address this. So it's fine and dandy to say we're going to prohibit a truck, which is another name for prohibiting a driver, because he's not leasing a truck, he or she. Yes, you could do that, and then the LMC or the broker will just find another driver to take his or her shoes. And I think we need to step back and look at what the real issue is. It's not what this country is about. And I'm certainly a product of a family that fought, fought hard, worked there and the opportunity was there. And I want that same opportunity to be given to people who are in the truck industry, the kind of industry that we had before, in the 1980s."

We're All At Risk From Air Toxics

2009-06-26T18:48:09Z

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday released some very disturbing results of its analysis of air toxics data from 2002. EPA found that every U.S. resident has a higher cancer risk of greater than 10 in a million from exposure to air toxics. Every U.S. resident. What does a 10 in a million increased cancer risk mean? The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have committed to not going forward with new projects if the projected increase in cancer risk from a project is 10 in a million or greater.

The EPA study also found that two million Americans have an increased cancer risk of more than 100 in a million from air toxics - a level of risk ten times higher than what is allowed at our country's busiest ports. The study itself is difficult to parse through, but here's a good summary.

There are some methodological questions about the study that I'm not clear about. For example, the potential cancer risk from diesel PM exhaust emissions is not addressed, even though, as EPA itself says, "It is particularly significant that the assessment did not quantify cancer risk from diesel PM, although EPA has concluded that the general population is exposed to levels close to or overlapping with apparent levels that have been linked to increase cancer risk in epidemiology studies." What that means to me is that EPA knows that the results from this study underestimate the actual cancer risk from air pollutants.

In fact, the cancer risk for diesel emissions has been addressed for the LA Ports area in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's MATES III study, which found elevated cancer risks of over 3,600 in a million near the ports. NRDC's scientists believe that diesel particulate matter is responsible for the vast majority of cancer risk from air toxics, and that noncancer impacts are tenfold greater for diesel.

The takeaway message from the EPA study is this: we have a huge public health problem in the U.S. as a result of polluted air. What is so frustrating to my NRDC Air Team colleagues and me is that most of our air pollution can be eliminated using current technology - for a price. So far, we as a society have not been willing to pay that price.

A Truckload of Hypocrisy

2008-09-17T17:53:32Z

As reported in the Los Angeles Times on Saturday, September 13, 2008, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has taken steps that threaten to shut down the entire Clean Trucks Program enacted by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach - a program that is based on the phasing out of older trucks. The FMC action, not coincidentally, follows a resounding legal defeat of the American Trucking Association (ATA), the same group that has repeatedly said, and whose lawyer told a federal judge in open court, that the ATA did not oppose the phased-in ban. The question at hand is whether the FMC can legally stop the Clean Trucks Plans from moving forward, and it seems that ATA hopes this is the case.

Last month, the ATA filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Ports' trucking concession plans, but purporting not to challenge the ban of older trucks. On August 18, 2008, the ATA filed a document with the FMC titled "Comments of the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, American Trucking Associations." At page six of this document, ATA asks the FMC to "Undertake A Competitive Review And Analysis Of The Ports' Concession Programs And Assess The Impact Of Enforcement Of The Clean Truck Programs' October 1 Deadlines Prior To Permitting The Agreement To Take Effect." Sounds like ATA wants the entire Clean Trucks Program stopped, doesn't it?

The FMC took the bait, and on September 12, 2008, three days after ATA lost its effort in federal court to stop a critical part of the Clean Trucks Plan, the FMC issued a press release stating:

By a 2-1 vote, the Federal Maritime Commission determined ...additional information is essential to the Commission's understanding of the costs and benefits of the Ports' Clean Truck Program (CTP), and the likely effect of the Agreement on transportation costs and services. Such analysis is required of the Commission as mandated by the Shipping Act of 1984.

FMC Commissioner Brennan got the drift and didn't like it. He wrote in dissent:

"...voted "no" to a staff recommendation to further delay a comprehensive environmental and economic plan of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach contained in their cooperative working agreement. Mr. Brennan believes that the Commission is making a monumental mistake in delaying, yet again, the overall environmental plan that the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach have developed to address serious health concerns and needed port expansion in the region. Earlier, in April of 2008, the Commission delayed the Ports' related implementation agreement by requesting additional information. Some of the questions in the April request are essentially repeated in this latest September request.

So where does this leave us? The ATA did not get what it wanted in its federal court lawsuit so it wants to move its fight, whatever the public health and economic cost, to a friendlier "court," the FMC. We'll be there too, ready to defend the health of millions of Southern California residents who breathe the pollution that ATA's members produce.

This, You Call a Slam Dunk?

2008-07-29T02:39:33Z

After months of chest-thumping, the trucking industry has finally filed its lawsuit against the Clean Trucks Programs of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

A month or so ago, an industry representative told the Journal of Commerce that their lawsuit would be a “slam dunk.” The industry complaint reminds me of a play by the little-known John Q. Trapp, a Los Angeles Laker benchwarmer from the early 1970’s (No. 31, seated between Wilt and Elgin in this team photo). One night, Trapp, who was no gazelle out there (as Chick Hearn used to say), went out on a breakaway and went up for the dunk, all alone. He slammed the ball off the heel of the basket, watching in helpless embarrassment as the ball took a long, high rebound out to midcourt.

Industry’s legal arguments will fare no better. First, they rely heavily on the recent Rowe vs. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association case from the U.S. Supreme Court for the argument that the ports can’t admit some trucks (i.e. clean trucks) and deny admittance to others (dirty trucks). The Rowe decision struck down a Maine law that required delivery truck drivers to check the ages of the recipients of cigarettes, on the theory that the Maine law was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The ATA says that Rowe means that the Ports can’t keep dirty trucks off their property. But ATA’s argument is wrong because even if a court finds the programs preempted, under the “market participant” doctrine, the ports, as landlords, can choose who they do or don’t want to do business with, and who can or can’t come onto their property.

Second, industry argues that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the ports from telling dirty trucks in interstate commerce that they can’t work at the ports. This is wrong also because the Commerce Clause (actually, the “dormant Commerce Clause,” for constitutional nitpickers) does not draw a bright line between permitted and illegal in a case like this, but rather requires a balancing test that looks at the local interests and the degree of impairment of interstate commerce. Here, the local public health interest is huge. Moreover, even if ATA can establish any harmful effects on interstate trucking, these impacts will be very small, in part because most interstate cargo leaves the ports by rail. The Ports’ emissions inventory data does not lie and the filthy trucks that serve the ports are aiding and abetting a wholesale health crisis in port adjacent communities.

So, when this particular litigation game is over, the trucking industry will need to settle down, practice their chest passes and lay-ups, and get on the clean air team. It’s about time. The shot clock is about to run out for the health of many children and residents in the harbor area.

The Blue-Green Alliance is Red Hot

2008-07-26T19:52:30Z

Last Wednesday, International Brotherhood of Teamsters President James P. Hoffa announced at a conference in Oakland, CA, that the Teamsters were withdrawing from the coalition supporting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This was a stunning development, especially given the media hoopla that followed the formation of the alliance seven years ago.

Also remarkable was the context for President Hoffa’s announcement – a nationwide conference of environmental, labor, community, faith-based and health advocates working on port pollution issues. This “blue-green” alliance is working together out of a common interest to fix the public health problems caused by diesel pollution produced by U.S. ports. Momentum is growing following the enactment in Los Angeles of the first clean trucks plan in the world.

NRDC and other members of the alliance are working to take this victory on the road to New York/Newark, Oakland, Seattle, Houston, and other U.S. ports. The coalition is still trying to work with the Port of Long Beach – L.A.’s neighbor port, to enact a clean truck plan that actually has a chance of success instead of creating a financial burden for the low-income drivers driving the big rigs. These guys are trying to support a family on less than $30,000 and under Long Beach’s plan are also expected to foot 20 percent of the bill for a $125,000+ new truck, and help pay for maintenance. L.A. set up their plan to make sure the drivers never have to pay a dime.

One day before the conference, at a rally in Oakland with Los Angeles Mayor Villagraigosa at his side, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums announced that Oakland would be the next port to enact a clean trucks program modeled on the Los Angeles plan. The L.A. plan puts the financial burden of new, clean trucks on real trucking companies with employee drivers, not on the drivers themselves. Industry’s reaction, predictably, will be litigation, and NRDC will be there to help defend the L.A. plan.

President Hoffa recognized in his address that the problems we face from global warming are real and need to be dealt with today. Port trucking plans that get old, dirty, inefficient trucks off the road will help in that fight. Ineffective plans that put an impossible burden on drivers won’t. Mayors Villaraigosa and Dellums know this. Speaker Pelosi and the 31 members of Congress who signed a letter to the Federal Maritime Commission in favor of the Los Angeles plan know this. The members of the blue-green alliance who met in Oakland know this. Our job now is to defend the L.A. plan and carry its message nationwide.

Californians Who Breathe Should Like This

2008-07-25T21:20:00Z

Yesterday, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) enacted historic regulation to require oceangoing vessels, including container ships and tankers, to use low-sulfur fuel within 24 miles of California’s coast, beginning on July 1, 2009. This regulation, the only one of its kind in the United States, will cut particulate pollution from these big ships by 80 percent or more, saving many lives and billions of dollars in health care costs and lost work time. Disappointingly, industry is expected to sue to invalidate this regulation.

The public health problem that these laws are trying to address is undisputed. More than 3,500 premature deaths will be avoided, and the cancer risk to millions of Californians will be reduced.

Here are the details of the regulation. Currently, diesel-powered oceangoing vessels can burn dirty “bunker fuel” that contains up to 45,000 parts per million sulfur. The sulfur content of diesel fuel is directly related to how much particulate pollution comes out of the ship’s smokestack. The new CARB rule has two steps. First, it limits fuel in vessels’ main engines, auxiliary engines, and boilers to 15,000 parts per million sulfur if marine gas oil (MGO), or 5,000 parts per million sulfur if using marine diesel oil (MDO), beginning July 1, 2009. Then, beginning January 1, 2012, the limits are 1,000 parts per million sulfur for MDO or MGO. By way of contrast, on-road diesel trucks in California are limited to 15 parts per million sulfur. That’s right: 15.

No one, including the shipping industry, argues with the fact that ships need to burn low sulfur fuel to protect the health of residents near ports. But industry wants to play out the clock until the International Maritime Organization (IMO) enacts a worldwide, but much less stringent, low sulfur rule. The IMO proposal floated in April, 2008, would reduce the sulfur content of fuel to 35,000 parts per million in January, 2012, and then to 5,000 parts per million in January, 2020, subject to a feasibility review in 2018. In fact, 2,000 parts per million sulfur fuel is widely available right now. The IMO also suggested that limits in so-called Sulfur Emission Control Areas (of which there are two, both in Europe) be reduced to 10,000 parts per million in 2010, and to 1,000 parts per million in 2015. These proposals may or may not be enacted by the full IMO in October, 2008. But this is way too little, way too late, for the residents of California who are plagued by diesel particulate pollution – now.

In CA, Port Commerce Will Pay for Clean Air

2008-07-17T01:20:05Z

On July 15, 2008, California State Senator Alan Lowenthal’s bill to impose a fee on cargo containers passed the California Assembly, on its way to Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk. The vote wasn’t close: 46-23.

The Assembly vote was the result of years of work by Sen. Lowenthal and a wide-ranging coalition of enviro, labor, health and community groups, including NRDC. Assemblyman De La Torre also helped shepherd the bill through the lower house. The bill will provide millions of dollars for projects to clean up the air pollution that is caused by goods movement in California by imposing a $30 per TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) fee on cargo containers shipped through the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

Predictably, elements of the business community have called the Lowenthal bill a “job killer,” preferring, as usual, to have someone else pay to clean up the pollution that the goods movement industry creates. The California Chamber of Commerce thumbnail opposition is: “Increases the cost of shipping goods and makes California less competitive by imposing an illegal per-container tax in the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland.”

Let’s look at that reasoning. A twenty-foot cargo container can hold about 50,000 pounds of cargo. My laptop weights about 6 pounds and sells for around $1,200. Suppose a cargo container comes into Oakland with 8,000 of these laptops in it. The increased price per laptop under the Lowenthal bill would be less than half a cent. For my nearly weightless sneakers, even less. For a heavy, big-screen DLP television weighing 70 pounds, the increase would be less than 5 cents – well worth it to see the Dodgers beat the Giants on the big screen. So, yes, the cost of goods would increase, but I think we can handle a 5 cent increase on a $1,300 TV.

As to reducing California ports’ competitiveness – competitiveness with respect to whom? The already high-cost ports of LA and Long Beach handle around 40 percent of the nation’s imports now – and for a good reason: they allow for the shortest shipping routes from Asia to the U.S. and have an unparalleled infrastructure already in place to send cargo all over the country. Where else will ship traffic go over $30 per TEU? Given very high prices for fuel, the cost of shipping goods through the Suez Canal to the East Coast or, in a few years, through the expanded Panama Canal to the Gulf Coast, will be hugely higher by comparison. So, the “competitiveness” claim is phony also.

Last, but not least (hey, I’m a lawyer) is the illegality claim. We’ve seen these same arguments trotted out over and over by elements of industry who don’t want to pay to clean up their own mess – a mess that they continue to profit from. Bottom line, the tidelands on which the three California ports covered by the bill sit are property of the State, and so the State can regulate its property’s uses without coming into conflict with the federal Constitution.

The real question about legality is whether the big-box retailers will sue California to block a bill that is designed to protect the health of their customers, California residents. It would be foolish for them to do this. We’ll soon see if they will.

Faster Freight Does Not Mean Cleaner Air

2008-07-14T23:07:59Z

Last week, I attended a shipping industry love-fest in New York called “Faster Freight, Cleaner Air.” Yes, that’s right, the industry types reading from the rosy scenario script wanted to reassure each other that our nation’s cargo movement system is great, and we just need more of it.

With one exception, enviros were excluded from the panels, and for good reason if the program’s steering committee wanted to protect their colleagues from any reality-based bad news. That one exception was my NRDC colleague Rich Kassel, who bluntly told the audience that our freight system now is slow and dirty, and if we keep trying to build our way out of this problem using today’s technologies, it will become slower and dirtier.

Real solutions are available, but they cost money. Low-sulfur marine fuel is available on the market but costs twice as much as dirty bunker fuel. “Cold ironing,” or plugging ships at dock into electric power, is feasible but there are up-front costs to build the needed infrastructure. The 2007 model diesel trucks are 60 times cleaner than pre-1989 trucks, but can cost $150,000 – a sum that is way out of reach for the independent owner-operators who dominate the industry at the ports.

These are costs that industry does not want to bear – and why should they, given that they have been successful for decades in having the public pay for the public health and infrastructure costs that they create. In short, they like to socialize the costs but privatize the profits from goods movement.

As Rich pointed out, this has to end. NRDC is working with coalition partners around the country to make sure that it does – and to make sure that more freight doesn’t mean more cancer, more asthma, more days off work, and more hospitalizations for the millions of Americans living near our ports, freeways and rail lines.

The Federal Maritime Commission Does the Right Thing

2008-06-17T00:29:01Z

On June 13, 2008, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) wrote to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and stated that the FMC would “allow the early effectiveness” of the Ports’ agreement that authorized the Ports to cooperate in their Clean Trucks Programs. The FMC concluded that: “there was no basis at this time to determine that the Agreement is likely to result in an unreasonable increase in transportation costs or decrease in services.” In other words, the FMC has refused the trucking industry’s request to shut down the Ports Clean Trucks Programs.

Here’s the background to this letter. The trucking industry formally asked the FMC to block implementation of the clean truck programs enacted by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The FMC sent an onerous list of questions to both ports, which the ports responded to. Recently, FMC Commissioner Harold Creel was quoted as saying:

“So it would seem fairly clear from the divergent approaches taken by the two Harbor Boards that, although there may be strong agreement on the health benefits of their common environmental goals and emissions standards, the ‘employee mandate’ remains somewhat problematic.” These were encouraging words for the trucking industry, which had hoped to use the FMC as a tool to delay implementation of both Ports’ clean trucks programs.

Last week, 31 Members of Congress from Southern California penned a letter to the Federal Maritime Commission to support the LA Clean Trucks Program. The letter begins:

“We are writing to express our support for the Clean Trucks Program, a groundbreaking green growth initiative approved by the Port of Los Angeles on March 20, 2008. This program will produce sustainable environmental and public health improvements, enhance the efficiency and productivity of port trucking, and reduce congestion, while appropriately placing the financial responsibility for operating and maintaining a fleet of clean trucks on the trucking companies that negotiate haul rates instead of on the truck drivers who are trying to make ends meet. For these reasons, we are encouraging the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to give this important clean-air proposal full and fair consideration as it moves towards implementation."

The Representatives went on to say:

“The LA Clean Trucks program will actually strengthen competition within the port trucking industry as well as between port trucking and their retail clients. Since port trucking costs are a relatively small component of overall transportation costs, the increased operational costs required by this program will be far outweighed by the overwhelming public benefits.”

“As the FMC moves forward in its review of the LA Clean Trucks Program, we hope to work with you to ensure we avoid the huge economic, environmental, and public health costs that would result if this vital program is delayed.”

The letter was signed by Representatives (Loretta) Sanchez, (Linda) Sanchez, Miller, Lee, Fillner, Roybal-Allard, Harman, Baca, Farr, Berman, Solis, Eshoo, Woolsey, Waxman, Tauscher, Watson, Lofgren, Waters, Thompson, Schiff, Matsui, Speier, Richardson, Sherman, Cardoza, Napolitano, Becerra, Davis, Honda, Capps and Costa. Last month, Speaker Pelosi wrote to the FMC in support of the Port of LA plan. NRDC has also urged the FMC not to delay the Ports’ Clean Trucks Plans.

We don’t know which arguments convinced the FMC not to block the Ports’ much-needed Clean Trucks Plans. But the FMC did the right thing by siding with 31 members of Congress, NRDC, other leading environmental and public health organizations, labor organizations, and many others in declining industry’s offer to act as an obstructionist to cleaner air. We hope the FMC will continue to allow the Ports to clean up the trucks doing business in San Pedro Bay.

What He Said

2008-06-12T19:56:39Z

On Friday, May 16, 2008, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster gave a talk that blew the roof off the business-oriented FuturePorts conference in Long Beach. The beautiful setting, right by the water (thank you, Nancy), was a strong contrast to the tough words that Mayor Foster directed at industry. He told them, bluntly, that if the environmental measures that his port has enacted are halted, port expansion will halt also. “I'll see to it,” he said. And he will.

I hope that trucking industry representatives were in the audience, because they were the focus of Mayor Foster's promise. As reported in the May 19, 2008 Journal of Commerce, the American Trucking Association contends that the Long Beach plan is "unacceptable" because it contains a "command and control structure in the concession plan." Curtis Whalen, executive director of the American Trucking Association’s (ATA) Intermodal Conference, is quoted as saying: "We're definitely moving toward a trigger date for a lawsuit." Well, if ATA pulls the trigger, Mayor Foster says he will pull the plug on Port of Long Beach expansion, something no group with economic investment in the port wants to see.

The ATA's "command and control" trope hides the silliness of their core position: that the ports cannot legally decide that some trucks can come onto their land and some can't. Industry interprets the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution to mean that because port-serving trucks are in interstate commerce, a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil driven by a terrorist could not be denied admittance to the ports. Their interpretation says that while the ports may own their property and oversee cargo delivery from ships, trucks, or trains, they do not have any legal authority on their property to say the trucks should be electric and the ships should use low-sulfur fuel. It's like having a neighbor with a dilapidated, oil-leaking truck who parks on your driveway. According to the ATA, even though it's your property, you can't tell him not to park there/to fix his truck/maintain the truck because he has his own standards of upkeep that supersede yours because he owns the truck.

This is not just silly; it is plainly wrong. The Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles are landlords who can control access to their property - here, their ports. As high courts have emphasized in several decisions, there is a "market participant" exception to the usual Commerce Clause rules when a governmental body is acting to buy, sell or lease property, rather than as a regulator. That is precisely the situation at the ports of LA and Long Beach who must consider public health impacts, just as airports have used this same exception to say, ban smoking on the premises.

The more the port expands, the more money the port makes. Stalling expansion projects is not good for business, but it is essential that any expansion project consider environmental and community health impacts. Some companies understand this: Maersk, the world’s largest shipping line, and Foss Maritime, which supplies tugs and barges on the West Coast and elsewhere, have already moved away from using heavily-polluting high-sulfur marine fuel. But the ATA doesn't want to play by those rules and Mayor Foster responded by saying he’ll just take the port expansion off the table.

We're committed to working with both ports to ensure community and environmental concerns are heard while the port develops. Mayors Villaraigosa and Foster, Councilwoman Hahn, and LA Harbor Commissioner Freeman are also committed to this goal. At the end of the day, it will be the trucking industry, not NRDC, stalling the clean trucks plan at both ports, a plan that would provide cleaner air to port residents beginning this fall. But, depending on how the federal court rules, they may have to wait a lot longer than that.

Clean Air Act Applies to All

2008-05-30T00:35:44Z

Southern California’s air quality woes are a well known fact, but not enough has been done to alleviate the problem. Today, NRDC filed a petition for review in the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging EPA’s approval of the South Coast Air Basin motor vehicles emissions budgets. These budgets are supposed to tell EPA how the South Coast Air Basin is doing on its federally-required roadmap to cleaner air.

In our view, the report that EPA approved simply doesn’t go far enough to address air quality problems for our region. Surprisingly, it leaves 1.5 million people who live next to diesel-clogged freeways to shoulder the worst pollution effects with little or no relief. This is unacceptable. It’s why we filed our lawsuit today.

Last week, California’s Air Resource Board (CARB) released a major new study stating roughly three times as many people in California could die annually as a result of the state’s air pollution problems. CARB estimates that a lethal combination of tailpipe and smokestack emissions could kill 24,000 people a year, compared to CARB’s previous 8,200 estimate. CARB estimates that up to 6,500 Californians die each year as a result of pollution from goods movement within the state.

Most of the people affected by the public health issue that CARB highlights live near goods movement routes: ports and freeways. NRDC has worked for years to clean up cargo-carrying diesel ships and trucks. We have had some success, but not enough. And now even moderate measures such as banning the oldest, dirtiest trucks from the ports are under legal attack by industry. If industry wins, the premature death numbers will increase, as will the need for a clean air plan that gets us where we need to go on schedule.

Alarmists are saying that NRDC’s lawsuit will stall cleaning up our air. Not so: we are not challenging the South Coast Air District’s plan, but instead the District’s rosy report on where we are on the plan’s timeline. And there are measures available right now to get us back on track, such as strengthening and accelerating CARB’s proposed diesel truck rules.

In the long run, NRDC would like to see more cargo carried by rail and less by trucks; we would also like to see the elimination of fossil-fuel powered “drayage,” meaning the transportation of cargo containers from ships to rail yards. The Port of Los Angeles recently demonstrated an electric cargo truck that it has been developing; that truck, or something like it, is where we need to be going to meet the timeline and targets in the South Coast Air District’s plan.

To Russia With Love

2008-03-14T22:41:03Z

Trofim Lysenko, a Russian biologist from a non-scientific background who rejected Mendelian genetics, was a favorite of Stalin because his theories of agronomy -- based on the (now discredited) concept of environmentally acquired inheritable traits -- promised vastly higher crop yields. ”Lysenkoism” was made an official doctrine of the Soviet state, and dissent was punished with dismissal from employment, or worse. The result of this was years of lower crop yields in a country whose agricultural sector was already in shambles due to forced collectivization. Lysenko’s influence extended from the mid-1930’s to the mid-1960’s, when physicist Andrei Sakharov had the guts to publicly expose him as a fraud.

The genesis of the ozone rule announced by EPA on March 12, 2008, makes me wonder whether Lysenko’s ghost is haunting the Bush White House. Once again, politics are determining scientific “truth” to the probable detriment of agriculture – this time, to U.S. agriculture.

There are two ozone standards reviewed by the EPA every five years. One is for public health and one is for public welfare. The public welfare standard is intended to protect the environment, including agricultural lands, food crops and forests. EPA scientists know protecting crops and ecosystems requires a lower ozone standard than the health-based standard. And, as the EPA told the White House, air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of such pollutant in the ambient air.”

Unfortunately for us, our lungs, and future food supplies, this criteria was overruled – by politicians, not scientists. In a Soviet-style turn of events, the Bush administration intervened and disregarded the Clean Air Act and recommendations by EPA scientists who lobbied to set a stricter ozone level for agricultural lands and ecosystems in general. Every one of EPA’s scientific experts believed the standard for protection of the environment should be lower than the standard for protection of human health. By overriding the EPA’s decision to set stricter ozone limits, the administration chose to ignore science and instead, for reasons of pure politics, to set the public welfare standard at the same level as the public health standard -- much higher than EPA felt was justified.

Trofim Lysenko and Joe Stalin would have been proud of this decision. As my colleague John Walke explained and was covered today on the front page of the Washington Post and Associated Press: “Never before has a president personally intervened at the 11th hour, exercising political power at the expense of the law and science, to force EPA to accept weaker air quality standards than the agency chief's expert scientific judgment had led him to adopt.” Question is, will we be stuck 30 years from now still trying to recover from the impact of one man’s politically motivated decision to weaken ozone limits?