Is clean air unreasonable?

Recently the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) decided to put all its power to stop the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach from institutiing their Clean Trucks Programs. To pay for the purchase of new cleaner diesel trucks and alternative-fuel trucks the ports both introduced a fee of $35 for each 20 foot container and $70 for each 40 foot container that would be charged to the cargo owners such as Wal-Mart. The FMC has blocked the collection of this fee maintaining that it will “produce an unreasonable increase in transportation cost."

What exactly is unreasonable? Containers hold thousands of dollars worth of merchandise. Let's say one holds only $10,000 worth of designer clothes (they usually hold merchandise worth many tens of thousands). The container fee represents just .0035 percent of the value of those clothes. In other words 35 cents for a shirt that costs $100. On the other hand pollution from diesel emissions in CA alone costs us over $28 billion a year in health costs and premature deaths.

For decades business and industry have enjoyed low-cost transportation while we have "enjoyed" dirty toxic air. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Clean Trucks Programs represent the most ambitious and pioneering program in the world to finally do something about this injustice at a reasonable and just price to business. The majority of our population in this country and around the world lives in coastal areas near major ports meaning that the majority of our family and friends are affected. Would you pay 35 cents to prevent your child from developing asthma, or your mother from dying 14 years too early? Would you pay it to tell our government and governments around the world that protecting human health and quality of life is a priority? Isn't that reasonable?

Next Post >

Comment

You need to be a member of The Bee Hive to add comments!

Join The Bee Hive

Comment by Ryan Wiggins on December 15, 2008 at 3:27pm: Thanks for the comment Joe. The FMC has rarely been active in the past several decades. In fact the last time that they interfered in a port-trucking issue was in the 1960s. It's difficult to find any other reason for this action other than the FMC is blocking the Clean Trucks Program as a concession to industry in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The American Trucking Association already lost a lawsuit filed in the 9th District Court a few months ago attempting to have the program thrown out, and this is the next step, and the last-ditch effort, by industry to stop it.

Stopping the ships from docking is a justifiable initial reaction, but it is not feasible and would be another blow to our economy in already tough times. The Ports of LA and Long Beach together handle the vast majority of the nation's containerized cargo. Shutting off that flow would shut down the flow of goods to many of the country's businesses. Locally the ports have an important role in transporting hundreds of billions of dollars of cargo every year. You can imagine what cutting that off would do to California's economy.

Essentially the plan is the product of environmental, public health and community groups, along with the Ports recognizing that the only viable solution is moving towards greener models that will lessen pollution even in the face of increasing trade.

Comment by Joe on December 11, 2008 at 3:23pm: This is disturbing. If I were in charge I would refuse to allow the ships to dock. Obviously the FMR has chosen the Christmas season to do this so that there would be an outpouring of outrage if it were done now. It is entirely reasonable that a community affected by an activity would tax said activity in order to reduce the negative effects.