Long Beach Settles: Appoints American Trucking Association as 5th Commissioner with Veto Power Over CTP
Ok, so not officially but pretty close.
In a move widely condemned by public health and environmental groups across the country the Port of Long Beach emerged hand in hand with the American Trucking Association last week to announce it had settled a lawsuit challenging the legality of many of the core aspects of the Clean Trucks Program. The settlement threatens the long-term environmental and social sustainability of the trucking fleet and the quality of life of port impacted communities.
Both the Port and the ATA however deny this and state that they are now partners in creating a clean truck fleet. In their joint press release Harbor Commission President Nick Sramek stated:
“This is a critical milestone for the program, reaching consensus with an important industry partner. With this settlement, the Port of Long Beach and the ATA have agreed to move forward, together, on a Clean Trucks Program that works to safeguard the environment while contributing to economic growth and jobs.”
While I respect President Sramek for his dedication and body of work in making Long Beach a cleaner healthier place to live this statement fails to acknowledge the historical partnership between industry and the Port that has enveloped our communities in a cloud of the dirtiest most toxic diesel haze in the country for decades. The Clean Trucks Program and the Clean Air Action Plan came into being as a result of community engagement with the Port, and in spite of industry.
The ATA dubiously claims that it and its members support the environmental goals of the Clean Trucks Programs but if this is true then why have port drayage markets been characterized as “the place where trucks go to die” and why didn’t the industry take the initiative to clean itself up over the last 30 years? The simple answer is that the industry has been more interested in holding down costs and jacking up profits leaving us with the dirtiest and oldest trucks that belch black smoke while driving through our neighborhoods and by our schools. And the truth is that the ATA has mastered the art of talking out of both sides of its mouth. The ATA has repeatedly opposed important environmental regulations including regulating particulate air pollution, new diesel emissions standards, and regulating emissions from transport refrigeration units. Most recently and most revealingly an association of industry groups - representing 80 percent of the trucking industry many of whom are ATA members – opposed a truck ban at the Ports of New York and New Jersey maintaining that it was illegal. Now wait a minute, you support it here and not there? And by the way they also testified against national climate change legislation. Why? Because they like voluntary environmental initiatives but not binding regulation, and frankly for the most part they have chosen to voluntarily do very little about cleaning up their emissions.
For the ATA – and port industry in general – this settlement could prove to be a major victory in their fight to stave off responsibility for cleaning up their own mess. From this moment forward if the Port is pushed to set new tougher environmental standards for port trucking it will have to ask the ATA for permission first. For the Long Beach community the Clean Trucks Program was the first step in lifting the health, environmental, and quality of life burden imposed by the port trucking system in the name of profit. It banned old and subsidized new cleaner trucks, would have prevented trucks from driving through our neighborhoods pumping toxic diesel emissions and obnoxious noise and turning our schools, parks, and homes into industrial cancer zones, and promised to put us on the fast track towards kicking the diesel habit for the cleanest available alternative-fueled trucks.
Yes, the ban is still in effect and the truck fleet is 2007 EPA compliant but we’re talking about a long-term plan to fix the system not a one-time fix that will have to be done all over again in a few years at the cost of at least $1 billion in taxpayer and private funds. Diesel trucks will continue to get cleaner – providing of course that there are regulations to force the technology forward. But no matter how clean diesel gets it’s still an extremely dirty and toxic fuel and that’s why alternative fuels are the future. With this settlement it is very likely the ATA will be able to veto any attempt by the Port to set new standards for trucking such as establishing new model year and fuel economy standards as time passes. The ATA has long maintained that standards should be set on a national basis and has occasionally reluctantly accepted California statewide regulations, but has generally opposed local regulations. The extremely poor air quality in Long Beach requires more stringent regulations than those enacted at the state and national levels, and even though the air quality emissions from the drayage fleet have been reduced by almost 80 percent it is not enough. The CTP does not address climate changing gases or fuel economy in any way even though there are currently available alternative-fueled trucks that can immediately reduce both air quality and climate changing emissions right now. Eventually, nothing less than a zero emissions fleet will eventually be needed to sufficiently reduce the health risks from the Port. Achieving such a fleet will require significant capital which cannot be drawn from the pool of misleadingly named Independent Owner Operators that make $10 - $12 per hour, especially since alt-fuel trucks cost anywhere from approximately $150,000 - $300,000 each.
The decision to set standards should not be dependent on the approval of the ATA. This settlement gives what appears to be a de facto veto over changes to the CTP. Those decisions should be left up to the Harbor Commission.
The additional issue is whether this settlement should have been reached without consulting the elected leaders of the City of Long Beach. At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting City Attorney Robert Shannon gruffly told the City Council that they have no interest or jurisdiction in this case so were not consulted. This despite the City being listed along with the Port of Long Beach as a defendant and despite the fact that this settlement excludes the community and elected officials from influencing the future course of the port trucking fleet that has an enormous impact on their health and quality of life. Industry now seems to fill that role and the Port has said as much stating that it will move forward together with the ATA rather than the community.
So what now? What do we do now that the Port of Long Beach has shown itself to either be pro-industry, anti-community, or simply unwilling to stand up for the principle of strong local control over environmental standards? Is it not likely that this will become an invitation for industry to sue or threaten to sue the Port to stave off regulations meant to protect the public health? This port/industry partnership looks increasingly like the fruits of cigar smoking brandy sipping backroom dealing longtime bedfellows.
The Port of Long Beach has long bemoaned the perceived light-handed approach that environmental, public health, labor, and community groups have taken when dealing with the Port of Los Angeles. This approach however is the product of a process of increasing openness and community participation that the Port of Long Beach has yet to demonstrate on a consistent basis that would certainly sow the seeds of trust and mutual cooperation. This settlement once again affirms our wariness with a Port that calls itself the Green Port but fails to recognize all but the most basic level of what is required to achieve environmental sustainability.
In a move widely condemned by public health and environmental groups across the country the Port of Long Beach emerged hand in hand with the American Trucking Association last week to announce it had settled a lawsuit challenging the legality of many of the core aspects of the Clean Trucks Program. The settlement threatens the long-term environmental and social sustainability of the trucking fleet and the quality of life of port impacted communities.
Both the Port and the ATA however deny this and state that they are now partners in creating a clean truck fleet. In their joint press release Harbor Commission President Nick Sramek stated:
“This is a critical milestone for the program, reaching consensus with an important industry partner. With this settlement, the Port of Long Beach and the ATA have agreed to move forward, together, on a Clean Trucks Program that works to safeguard the environment while contributing to economic growth and jobs.”
While I respect President Sramek for his dedication and body of work in making Long Beach a cleaner healthier place to live this statement fails to acknowledge the historical partnership between industry and the Port that has enveloped our communities in a cloud of the dirtiest most toxic diesel haze in the country for decades. The Clean Trucks Program and the Clean Air Action Plan came into being as a result of community engagement with the Port, and in spite of industry.
The ATA dubiously claims that it and its members support the environmental goals of the Clean Trucks Programs but if this is true then why have port drayage markets been characterized as “the place where trucks go to die” and why didn’t the industry take the initiative to clean itself up over the last 30 years? The simple answer is that the industry has been more interested in holding down costs and jacking up profits leaving us with the dirtiest and oldest trucks that belch black smoke while driving through our neighborhoods and by our schools. And the truth is that the ATA has mastered the art of talking out of both sides of its mouth. The ATA has repeatedly opposed important environmental regulations including regulating particulate air pollution, new diesel emissions standards, and regulating emissions from transport refrigeration units. Most recently and most revealingly an association of industry groups - representing 80 percent of the trucking industry many of whom are ATA members – opposed a truck ban at the Ports of New York and New Jersey maintaining that it was illegal. Now wait a minute, you support it here and not there? And by the way they also testified against national climate change legislation. Why? Because they like voluntary environmental initiatives but not binding regulation, and frankly for the most part they have chosen to voluntarily do very little about cleaning up their emissions.
For the ATA – and port industry in general – this settlement could prove to be a major victory in their fight to stave off responsibility for cleaning up their own mess. From this moment forward if the Port is pushed to set new tougher environmental standards for port trucking it will have to ask the ATA for permission first. For the Long Beach community the Clean Trucks Program was the first step in lifting the health, environmental, and quality of life burden imposed by the port trucking system in the name of profit. It banned old and subsidized new cleaner trucks, would have prevented trucks from driving through our neighborhoods pumping toxic diesel emissions and obnoxious noise and turning our schools, parks, and homes into industrial cancer zones, and promised to put us on the fast track towards kicking the diesel habit for the cleanest available alternative-fueled trucks.
Yes, the ban is still in effect and the truck fleet is 2007 EPA compliant but we’re talking about a long-term plan to fix the system not a one-time fix that will have to be done all over again in a few years at the cost of at least $1 billion in taxpayer and private funds. Diesel trucks will continue to get cleaner – providing of course that there are regulations to force the technology forward. But no matter how clean diesel gets it’s still an extremely dirty and toxic fuel and that’s why alternative fuels are the future. With this settlement it is very likely the ATA will be able to veto any attempt by the Port to set new standards for trucking such as establishing new model year and fuel economy standards as time passes. The ATA has long maintained that standards should be set on a national basis and has occasionally reluctantly accepted California statewide regulations, but has generally opposed local regulations. The extremely poor air quality in Long Beach requires more stringent regulations than those enacted at the state and national levels, and even though the air quality emissions from the drayage fleet have been reduced by almost 80 percent it is not enough. The CTP does not address climate changing gases or fuel economy in any way even though there are currently available alternative-fueled trucks that can immediately reduce both air quality and climate changing emissions right now. Eventually, nothing less than a zero emissions fleet will eventually be needed to sufficiently reduce the health risks from the Port. Achieving such a fleet will require significant capital which cannot be drawn from the pool of misleadingly named Independent Owner Operators that make $10 - $12 per hour, especially since alt-fuel trucks cost anywhere from approximately $150,000 - $300,000 each.
The decision to set standards should not be dependent on the approval of the ATA. This settlement gives what appears to be a de facto veto over changes to the CTP. Those decisions should be left up to the Harbor Commission.
The additional issue is whether this settlement should have been reached without consulting the elected leaders of the City of Long Beach. At last Tuesday’s City Council meeting City Attorney Robert Shannon gruffly told the City Council that they have no interest or jurisdiction in this case so were not consulted. This despite the City being listed along with the Port of Long Beach as a defendant and despite the fact that this settlement excludes the community and elected officials from influencing the future course of the port trucking fleet that has an enormous impact on their health and quality of life. Industry now seems to fill that role and the Port has said as much stating that it will move forward together with the ATA rather than the community.
So what now? What do we do now that the Port of Long Beach has shown itself to either be pro-industry, anti-community, or simply unwilling to stand up for the principle of strong local control over environmental standards? Is it not likely that this will become an invitation for industry to sue or threaten to sue the Port to stave off regulations meant to protect the public health? This port/industry partnership looks increasingly like the fruits of cigar smoking brandy sipping backroom dealing longtime bedfellows.
The Port of Long Beach has long bemoaned the perceived light-handed approach that environmental, public health, labor, and community groups have taken when dealing with the Port of Los Angeles. This approach however is the product of a process of increasing openness and community participation that the Port of Long Beach has yet to demonstrate on a consistent basis that would certainly sow the seeds of trust and mutual cooperation. This settlement once again affirms our wariness with a Port that calls itself the Green Port but fails to recognize all but the most basic level of what is required to achieve environmental sustainability.
Comment
Buy Gear, Help the Bee
Buy MGB Gear
- - - - -
All proceeds go to EndOil, a non-profit fighting oil dependency & climate change
Check Community for Clean Ports' All Things Environmental Blog!
Clean trucks, solar cells, biofuels...a full helping of the critical environmental issues that are shaping Southern California and the world!
Events
© 2010 Created by Mighty Green Bee.
You need to be a member of The Bee Hive to add comments!
Join The Bee Hive