Growers and Grocers

Many of our kitchens contain products from all over the world. In my kitchen pantry, for example, you’ll find basmati rice from India, soy sauce from Thailand, sake from Japan, rice from Italy, and a few bottles of imported wine. These products enliven my diet, but they have costs that might not be apparent unless you live near a major port and can see the legions of trucks carrying cargo containers, the ships billowing black smoke at the docks, and trains rumbling across the region all day and night.

One of the major negative impacts of international shipping is air pollution. The limited number of suitable ports along a country’s coastlines and the need for expensive infrastructure to carry goods (rail lines, highways) result in a concentration of that impact on a small number of communities. In Southern California, the burden falls most on the cities around Long Beach and those who live, work or go to school near the freeways that serve the ports (in L.A. speak, “the 710″, “the 91″, and “the 105″). The ports also affect all breathers in Southern California, as port activities are a major source of the air pollutants. According to the Ports’ Clean Air Action Plan (pdf), 12% of the diesel particulate, 9% of the nitrogen oxides, and 45% of the sulfur oxides originate from the ports’ ships, trucks, trains and service equipment. The ports are also major sources of jobs and economic power, as over 40% of all goods carried to the U.S. by ship enter through these two ports.

Last week, in an unusual joint meeting of the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (the two port agencies are usually adversaries), their governing commissions approved a $2 billion port plan that aims to significantly reduce their air pollution over the next several years. Funds for the program will come from the State of California (the recently passed Prop. 1B had significant amounts earmarked for port clean-up), the shipping companies, and the importers and exporters; who pays what is still to be determined.

In Port panels OK plan to cut pollution, Janet Wilson reports on the meeting:

Studies have shown that diesel exhaust causes cancer and is responsible for 70% of pollution-related health problems and hundreds of deaths annually in the Los Angeles region.

Each port will contribute more than $100 million to replace the fleet of 16,000 aging short-haul diesel trucks that move goods between freighters and railcars. The total cost for the trucks, however, is expected to be as much as $1.8 billion.

The remainder would have to come from other industry and public funds. The plan also requires international cargo ships to run on low-sulfur fuel within 20 nautical miles of the harbor, and many docks will be retrofitted to require ships to use electric power while at shore.

[…]

Two truck drivers spoke at the meeting, and others honked their horns outside. Most of the drivers are Latino immigrants who use aging trucks that they either own or lease from small companies. They said they are forced to idle their dirty engines for hours waiting to pick up or unload cargo.

“I hate my truck, because the pollution makes people sick,” said Luis Sera, 48, of Long Beach, who added that he has driven at the ports for seven years and works 14- to 16-hour days to pay his bills.

[…]

Many commissioners and port staffers also stressed that the plan was a “living document,” and that changes could and would be made. Several called it historic because of the unparalleled cooperation between the often fractious neighboring ports.

But Los Angeles Harbor Commission President S. David Freeman said it was vital to make sure the plan was implemented, noting: “History can be a harsh judge.”

The plan includes a proposal to replace the current “fleet” of trucks with new trucks or provide emission control devices (I put “fleet” in quotes because the trucks that work at the port are nearly all owned by their operators, not by the shipping companies. The drivers work as independent contractors, are poorly paid, and have little job security.); building electrical infrastructure that allows docked ships to get their power from the grid instead of by running the diesel engines; upgrades to cargo-handling equipment; upgrades to locomotives; and much more. Getting the ships to clean up will take some creativity, as ocean-going ships are regulated by an international treaty, not the EPA or the California Air Resources Board. The full Clean Air Action Plan can be downloaded here.

If the ports can’t take care of the pollution by themselves, the government might do it for them — or at least determine where the money comes from to fund programs (i.e., taxes or user fees). Back in August, the California State Legislature approved a bill that would have imposed a fee on each container entering the Ports of Los Angeles or Long Beach, with one-third of the funds going to air pollution reduction. However, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The State of California’s attempts to reduce air pollution impacts from shipping are contained in a Goods Movement Plan; the U.S. EPA has created a voluntary program called the Smartway Transport Partnership that aims to reduce both the energy consumption and air pollution from goods movement.