Driving Toward Clean Air at Our Nation’s Ports
- Peter Lehner
- Executive Director, New York City
- Blog | About
- Posted October 27, 2009 in Curbing Pollution , Environmental Justice , Green Enterprise , Health and the Environment , Living Sustainably , Solving Global Warming
This post was co-written with Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. NRDC and Sierra Club are members of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, supporters of the clean truck program.
"Cancer alley." That's what many Southern Californians call the 23-mile rail and truck corridor connecting our nation's largest seaport to massive distribution centers east of Downtown Los Angeles. In California alone, diesel air pollution from ships, trucks and trains kills more than 3,700 people every year -- more than died in the 9-11 attacks.
Despite this stunning death-toll, the American Trucking Association is aggressively trying to dismantle a successful program adopted a year ago this month by the Port of Los Angeles that is well on its way to reducing diesel emissions from port trucks by 80 percent, and establishing a model that diesel-afflicted communities around the nation are beginning to follow.
California's diesel body count may be highest, but concentrations of cancer, asthma and other diseases caused by air pollution occur wherever large amounts of cargo move by ship, truck and train. The victims tend to be poor people of color who live or work alongside our ports, freeways and cargo hubs. But toxic diesel smoke knows no boundaries. It follows the wind, depositing carcinogenic particulate matter in the lungs of rich and poor alike.
By banning the oldest trucks outright, putting cleaner trucks on the road, and creating powerful rules to move cargo greenly, Los Angeles officials have removed 2,000 of the dirtiest rigs from service and helped business put nearly 6,000 clean-burning and alternative fuel trucks on the road.
The landmark clean truck program at the Port of Los Angeles sets the standard because it ensures that trucking companies that can afford to meet increasingly stringent environmental standards are responsible for clean-up, instead of independent truck drivers, who have been historically underpaid. Under the program, trucking companies agree to meet environmental, safety, and security standards in exchange for access to port terminals.
However, the trucking industry is spending millions of dollars to undermine this progress and the progress of like-minded ports nationwide that want to adopt clean-up plans. In an ongoing lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, the trucking industry is trying to weaken the progressive clean truck program, arguing that the port has no authority to reform port trucking operations that occur on its own property or even cure inefficiencies that affect the bottom line. Industry representatives go so far as to argue that the port should be barred from verifying whether trucks comply with clean air standards when entering port facilities.
Municipal airports and privately-owned stadiums place conditions on those who want to do business there, increasing the odds that vendors operate safely and consistently provide a high level of service. Ports should feel empowered to do the same.
The litigation by the trucking industry relies on obscure federal law that wasn't designed to restrict the right of local governments to protect their residents' health. That's why Congress should act now to clarify the right of states and municipalities to protect their citizens from the lethal byproduct of cargo transport.
Los Angeles has survived these challenges so far, but the specter of intense litigation with the trucking industry may dissuade other ports and municipalities from pursuing similar programs to reduce diesel pollution and save lives. Mayors Bloomberg and Booker of the Ports of New York and Newark respectively, Mayor Ritter of the Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of Oakland Mayor Dellums, and officials in Virginia, Charleston, Houston, and Tacoma know that unchecked diesel pollution degrades and shortens lives and causes tens of billions of dollars in health-related costs every year. They are all calling to regulate and reduce truck-produced pollution at their ports.
Our collective failure to protect the public from diesel pollution is a moral outrage and a shame on our nation. Fortunately, the Obama Administration appreciates that Americans want and deserve clean air and the sustainable jobs that accompany it. In the case of Los Angeles, there's a proven track record of success. As we celebrate the program's first year, Congress should embrace this local green-growth model and take action to protect it.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Marnachile — Oct 28 2009 10:56 AM
We need to applaud Major Bob Foster and the Commissioners of the Port of Long Beach for reaching a settlement in their dispute with the American Trucking Association (ATA) over the Clean Truck Program. This has become a win for both sides as The Port is presently ahead of plan in replacing dirty trucks for units which as a minimum will adhere to 2007 clean air standards. The trucking industry will still have to adhere to federal, local regulations on safety, security and environmental regulations. Motor carriers are required to insure all drivers possess valid California Drivers Licenses and federal Transportation Workers Identification Card, and adequate insurance.
The Port of Los Angeles continues to be an active participant in litigation with the American Trucking Association, as they are driven to push through their port truck concession model changing the present market use of owner operators and replace them with employee drivers, who would then be subject to be organized by the Teamsters. The Port of Long Beach spent in this litigation two million dollars and shared with the Port of Los Angeles in an additional 7.5 million dollars in legal expenses. The change of status by owner operator to employee drivers has no impact on the implementation of environmental efforts by Long Beach. The Port has been a partner with the citizens of Long Beach implementing serious environmental improvement programs, and we would expect it to continue into the future without deviating to accommodate influential political interests.
Epf — Oct 28 2009 11:39 AM
I think it’s about time that cold hard facts should trump rhetoric and scare tactics when it comes to clean harbor trucking in L.A. Two years ago, the port decided to ban older dirtier trucks in serving the port and slap a fee on folks, like Wal Mart, using dirty trucks. Then, the state’s air regulator decided to also ban older dirtier trucks registered in California to reign in emissions and make sure that “diesel death zones” don’t exist. I seem to recall that the NRDC and the Sierra Club wholeheartedly supported that policy. As you rightly point out, thanks to the truck ban and the fee the ports are on track to achieve their air emissions reduction target 2 years ahead of schedule.
It seems to me that the ports and the truckers should be applauded for this. Nobody, not the truckers or the folks, like Wal Mart hiring the truckers, ever took the ports to court over any of these clean truck policies. After spending about 2 minutes on the internet, I found out that the truckers sued both ports over how truckers are to be licensed to operate in the port. Apparently this has not one thing to do with clean trucking and achieving emissions reductions. The Port of Long Beach did a wonderful thing, by settling the dispute, saving tax payer dollars and allowing clean trucks to continue to operate.
I really don’t understand why we should be afraid of the fact that truckers and the port settled a costly dispute that had nothing to do with emissions reductions.
mhr — Oct 28 2009 12:58 PM
I am sadly disappointed in the NRDC on this issue. Mr. Lehner's single-minded support for the Teamsters' agenda is shameless.
ATA's lawsuit focuses on mainly one issue: whether the Port of Los Angeles will ban independent truckers from doing business there. The Port would like to impose the requirement that only drivers who are employees of large trucking companies can deliver or pick up cargo at the port. That would be a huge boon to the Teamsters, but it would throw hundreds of independent owner operators out of business and force them to go to work for large trucking companies.
This insistence on using employee drivers and large trucking companies seems to be based on the notion that idependent truckers are incapable of operating new clean trucks. And yet independent truckers are securing new trucks every day in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles -- putting the lie to the argument in the most stunning manner.
And yet, the NRDC continues to try to make the connection between independent trucking and dirty air without offering any kind of evidence or science to back up the claim. What happened to the old NRDC that used good science to make its case?
Maybe because in this instance there just isn't any good science. Maybe it's all just rhetoric designed to disguise the the hidden agenda -- which is to help organized labor put hundreds of independent owner operators out of business. Since when is NRDC about attacking small businesses and supporting large ones?
It's a shame NRDC thinks it needs to carry the water for organized labor, at the expense of independent owner operators. It's even more distressing when the organization tries to obfuscate its position with the kind of rhetoric Mr. Lehner has served up in this blog.
Tom Politeo — Oct 29 2009 02:28 AM
As a San Pedro Bay resident who lives and works in San Pedro and Long Beach, I am deeply troubled by Mayor Bob Foster's approach and the poor settlement that the Port of Long Beach made with the American Trucking Association.
Truckers accessing the ports queue up in long lines, often more than an hour at a time, spewing toxic air pollution and greenhouse gasses and generating noise all the time they wait. These adverse environmental impacts affect both nearby neighborhoods and the planet as a whole.
Trucks owned by drivers drive through residential neighborhoods where truckers live when the go home, creating excess noise in those neighborhoods as well often late at night or early in the morning.
Ten years of working this issues on the environmental front has demonstrated that drivers, pressed for cash in a hyper-competitive market, do not have the funds to properly care for their trucks. Many trucks are repaired in fly-by night shops where oil is changed and engines dismantled over open dirt. Oil and diesel seeps into the ground creating a future environmental clean up problem.
So, toxic tailpipe pollution is not the only environmental problem we've hoped to address, but one of a wide mix of an industry that acts without any regard to the environment. As a Sierra Club member, I am proud of the position that the national Sierra Club has taken here.
I and other environmental activists have pushed for a concession model for the trucking industry since 1999/2000 — to require trucking companies to own their own trucks and to hire or contract with drivers by the hour. These decisions were made years before the Teamsters and Change to Win approached the Sierra Club in 2006 with the same objectives.
We successfully lobbied to pass a state law in 2002 to prevent this sort of idling on city streets. And we did, except that the recalcitrant shipping and trucking companies moved the truck queues from city streets to port property where traffic laws can't reach.
The deficient market model under which trucking works must be corrected so that the true cost of trucking (including the fuel burned while truckers wait in line and the time truckers spend waiting in line) is passed up the food chain to the companies that have the authority to schedule when drivers arrive. Until then, they will completely disregard the scheduling of trucks. Until we can regulate where trucks are parked and repaired, we will continue to face other environmental problems as well.
It would seem prior commenters are familiar neither with the science nor the facts of what goes on around this filthy industry.