The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) has released its 2021 Emissions Inventory … what does it show?
POLA air emissions INCREASED in 2021 — Particulate Matter [PM] went up 69%, Diesel PM went up 56%, nitrogen oxides [NOx] went up 54% and sulfur oxides [SOx] went up 145%. The port’s explanation? COVID-19 led to longshore crew limits to mitigate COVID-19 spread, a lack of truck drivers, and a noticeable increase in shipments due to changed consumer shopping habits…
No question all these played a role, but we suggest the port has been disingenuous in taking a proactive leadership role in improving port communities’ environmental health.
The port has publicly lamented the supply chain breakdown and committed to reducing the logjam by working around the clock, moving idling cargo ships out of the harbor, and improving cargo throughput and efficiency. But what about proactive leadership? It was the community who complained about the ship gridlock in the harbor burning fuel and polluting the neighborhoods. Following community complaints at Harbor Commission meetings and news media articles, the port finally responded, issuing directives to move the idling toxic armada 150 miles offshore. But why wasn’t the port more proactive to this obvious environmental and health issue? Why is it the community’s “job” to pressure for more responsible and health-protective behavior?
State and regional air quality agencies have been watching port operations, in search of emissions reductions to comply with state and federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have “motivated” emissions reductions through various regulations or grants for low-sulfur fuels, cleaner trucks, calendar goals for electrification of trucks and terminals, green hydrogen programs and various sundry improvements in freight movement.
It’s true that the port and various agencies have committed millions of dollars to reduce port pollution. Unfortunately, some of these grants have funded companies with unproven technologies resulting in very expensive environmental failures. (More careful reviews and less wasted funding, please!) In the meantime, port communities and port workers continue to breathe emitted poisons every single day.
So why do we question port leadership?
The port neglected to adequately maintain the air monitoring network they had previously committed to operating in the port area; some stations are offline, while others have broken instruments awaiting replacement. The port’s initial response to this abrogation of public trust? They suggested just looking at the data from Long Beach or the greater region!
In negotiations with stakeholders and under a legal agreement, the port agreed to emissions reductions at a specific terminal (China Shipping) in exchange for expansion of that terminal’s operations. Investigative reporting by Random Lengths’ staff revealed these emissions reduction promises were simply abandoned due to terminal operator push back … but the port conveniently chose not to make that part public.
The port has repeatedly congratulated itself on the progress made in reducing port pollution since 2005. It lauds its great leadership in implementing “plugging in” of ships to reduce ship emissions … but overlooks how this came to be. “Cold ironing” at POLA was a mitigation measure instigated by homeowners who sued the port over its deficient environmental impact reports (EIRs) of the China
Shipping Terminal. The port’s EIRs have repeatedly under-emphasized the massive environmental impacts current and expanded cargo activities have on local communities. What kind of environmental leadership is that?
The recent September heat wave raised concerns about potential power shortages, so Gov. Gavin Newsom asked that ports cease electrical plug-ins of ships, and POLA complied. The Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power said there was plenty of power for POLA to continue plug-in operations. Various port officials gave conflicting answers to whether this was done, with some claiming that ships had not discontinued plugging in and others saying that they had. Photographic evidence of polluting ships at berth showed the ships burning fuel and belching black smoke. Ok … so in the face of a growing climate change reality, is the port looking to the future and developing its own power grid using wind, wave, or solar energies?
Now, the port reports that although emissions have increased dramatically in the past two years, emissions reductions are still proceeding “according to plan”. That’s technically true IF the comparison point is BEFORE the first Clean Air Action Plan (released in 2006). A look at emissions trends in the past decade shows reductions have made little progress.
Port communities continue to breathe dirty air and continue to wait on the “promise” of a cleaner tomorrow. Research has shown that infants born into a polluted environment are more likely to be born prematurely or have low birth weights, making their life more of a challenge. Children growing up breathing polluted air have been shown to suffer reduced lung function, increased respiratory health issues, a higher risk for developing asthma, and difficulty in learning and paying attention in school. Adults with co-existing health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, high blood pressure, and cognitive problems (dementia, Alzheimer’s, and other degenerative aging processes) have been shown to have accelerated declines in these health areas in the presence of dirty air. COVID-19 infections have been shown to be more problematic in the face of concurrent air pollution exposure, and air pollution (and diesel PM) are known human carcinogens.
If that doesn’t provide motivation to prioritize cleaning up the ports as quickly as possible, what will? When and how can we trust the port after repeated back-pedaling, data spinning, and disrespect for the community? When can we expect the port to prioritize health as highly as they prioritize expansion and economic growth?
Janet Gunter, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners United, INC.
Ed Avol, USC Dept. of Population and Public Health Sciences