|
Here are links to two TV news reports from our April 21, 2007 Protest/Rally
and March at Santa
Monica Airport.
Channel 2 http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=38003@kcbs.dayport.com
Los Angeles
Times
Airing concerns about jets
Protesters at Santa Monica Airport say larger craft are a health and safety hazard.
By Carla
Hall, Times Staff Writer April 22, 2007
It was sunny and breezy at
Santa Monica Airport on Saturday, a great day for flying — and for protesting flying.
A
few hundred local residents and several politicians held a midday rally in front of the dark glass of the airport's administrative
offices (closed on weekends) to decry the environmental and safety hazards of the increasingly busy airfield. Not far in the
distance, the objects of their protest — gleaming private jets — roared into the sky.
"The fact that the
jets came in so dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years and there's no buffer zone is a serious issue," said Los Angeles City
Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes the parts of L.A. that border the airport and who, like
some of the other speakers, stood before the crowd with a gas mask around his neck.
"We have to let everybody know
we're not going to tolerate it anymore!"
The crowd erupted in applause — which was quickly drowned out by a jet.
A
low drone of boos rose up from the group.
"That's one of our friendly neighbors," Martin Rubin, one of the
event's organizers, deadpanned.
Rubin, founder and director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution,
said toxic fumes from idling jets harm residents' health and that the lack of buffers for out-of-control jets leaves residents
— some of whom live less than 300 feet from the runway — vulnerable to possible crashes. According to activists,
90% of the fumes waft toward Los Angeles.
The rally, which was followed by a march on Bundy Avenue, is part of an intensive campaign waged for years by Santa Monica citizens. The airport was
originally designed for slower, smaller aircraft. The community has no problem with the propeller planes that people see as
they drive into the airport. At issue are the larger private jets whose traffic has skyrocketed with the advent of fractional
jet usage — in which travelers buy a partial interest in a type of jet, entitling them to a number of hours of flying
time.
"When people moved into these neighborhoods … they didn't have the pollutants coming out of these jets,"
Rosendahl said.
The city of Santa Monica has been criticized for not fighting the jet traffic at the airport, which is regulated
by the Federal Aviation Administration.
"Their reaction when they get pushed is they're sympathetic, but they don't
take action," said Marcia Hanscom, vice chairman of conservation for the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Santa
Monica City Councilman Kevin McKeown said he wants the council to toughen its stance. "I regret the jets coming in and out
of this airport," he said. "We also are battling with the FAA."
Air quality was a big issue at the rally. "Jet Setters,
You're Killing Us" read one demonstrator's sign. Some wore surgical masks over their mouths.
Rosendahl believes that
bigger jets should not be allowed at Santa Monica Airport and should be funneled instead to Van Nuys or Los Angeles International airports.
Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance)
told the crowd he had introduced a bill, AB 700, that would require the state to complete a study of air pollution caused
by jets and turboprops taking off and landing at Santa Monica Airport.
*
carla.hall@latimes.com
Staff
writer Sam Quinones contributed to this report.
###
LOS ANGELES CITY BEAT Jet Fuel
Follies 4-26-07 Jets flying
out of tiny Santa Monica Airport create more and more toxic fumes
~ By ANA LA O’ ~
To read the full story you will need to go to:
www.lacitybeat.com/
The Argonaut -
April 26, 2007
Protesters demonstrate against aircraft
nuisances at airport
BY GARY WALKER
Against the backdrop of rumbling jet engines, dozens of
energized, sign-waving protesters held a boisterous demonstration against aircraft nuisances at Santa
Monica Airport Saturday, April 21st.
The
rally to protest runway safety, airplane noise and air pollution took place one day before Earth Day, which demonstration
organizer Martin Rubin felt was very befitting.
Click here to read the full article.
The SANTA MONICA MIRROR
From Main News: April 26 - May 2, 2007
Air Pollution Demonstration at SMO
Terence Lyons, Mirror Staff Writer
Air pollution from jet aircraft
operations at Santa Monica Airport (SMO) was the focus of a demonstration Sunday, April 22,
by local residents and several politicians.
Click here to read the full article.
The LookOut News - April 23, 2007
Airport
Neighbors Protest Jet Traffic
By Gene Williams
Staff Writer April 23 -- Airport neighbors, hoping to ban jet
planes in Santa Monica,
carried picket signs and covered their mouths with filter masks Saturday at an Earth Day weekend demonstration outside the
airport's administration building.
Click here to read the full story.
Palisadian-Post
News in Brief: Temescal Oversight to SM Airport
April 25, 2007
Max Taves, Staff Writer
Protesters Decry Noise, Air Pollution at SM
Airport
Hundreds of residents concerned about safety and affected by noise
and air pollution at Santa
Monica Airport protested last Saturday. Fueled by the growth of private jets and debated federal safety standards, jet operations
at the airport have increased 1,400 percent since 1983.
As previously reported in the Palisadian-Post (?Airplane Noise Upsets
Hillside Calm,? December 15), that explosion in jet traffic has angered residents of Santa Monica
and Pacific Palisades, especially those living atop the Palisades? highest streets.
Airport protesters on Saturday, including Los Angeles City Councilmember
Bill Rosendahl, said that neighboring communities are flooded with dangerous pollutants, unwanted noise and
a safety hazard, reported the Los Angeles Times. They want the Federal Aviation Administration to enforce tighter safety standards
at the airport, which would reduce the number of large jets that now land at the airport. They also want an environmental
report that studies health effects.
###
Santa Monica Daily Press
Saturday/Sunday, July 22/23, 2006
City officials should stop idling on airport.
Guest Column by
Martin Rubin
Click here to download this edition, and go to page #5
Related
story:
Santa Monica Daily Press – Wednesday, May 31, 2006
All eyes on the city’s airport pollution issue.
Guest Column by
Martin Rubin
Click here to download this edition, and
go to page #4
The LookOut news – July 12, 2006 State Airport
Bill Grounded By Olin Ericksen, Staff Writer Click here to go to the article.
Los Angeles Times June 22, 2006
Foes of Bigger Airport Consider Legal Action
Residents
and school district officials speak after the city approves an environmental report for expansion. Click here to read more.
By Nancy
Wride, Times Staff Writer June 22, 2006
Los Angeles Times June 22, 2006
Jet-Setters Stir Up Turbulence at Santa Monica Airport
Surging
traffic at the airfield has neighbors feeling besieged
By Martha
Groves, Times Staff Writer June 22, 2006
Residents who
live near Santa
Monica Airport know it's Academy Awards season by the pickup in jet traffic zooming
over their houses.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger routinely jets in and out on state business.
Tom Cruise once had to outrun
paparazzi who chased him down the tarmac as he tried to board his private jet.
"Everybody from the president of the
United States to people who own small, single-engine planes and everybody in between flies
out of here," said airport Manager Robert D. Trimborn.
Nestled amid some of the nation's priciest real estate, Santa Monica Airport offers a convenient launch pad for well-heeled Westsiders and corporate bigwigs
who crave quick getaways.
Its growing clientele includes executives who favor $20-million Citation X and $35-million
Gulfstream IV jets. A strong economy and post-9/11 security concerns have helped boost jet usage at the airport nearly fourfold
over the last decade.
But as the single-runway facility gets busier, residents who live around it are becoming increasingly
worried about noise, air pollution and safety.
They contend that it's only a matter of time before an out-of-control
plane smashes past the end of the 5,000-foot runway and roars into the houses beyond, some a mere 250 feet west.
Turbulence
from casino magnate Steve Wynn's jet bowled over and smashed to bits a glass-topped patio table in the backyard of Virginia Ernst, who lives just east of the airport in Los
Angeles.
"We were able to identify
the plane immediately," she said.
Wynn's attorney dealt with the situation, paying Ernst $3,000.
Ernst says
she can look directly into the engines as jets take off. It sometimes seems, she says, that "they're going to land on the
roof."
Other residents agree. Yoram Tal, a TV show editor who has lived just west of the airport for about four years,
said he is "right in the line of fire" as jets take off and land.
Late one night, Tal, a small-plane pilot and Santa Monica airport commissioner, realized that he "could see not only the wing but the windows above the wing" as a jet took
off. "It was no more than 200 feet from my bed," he said. "It was loud, but more than loud it was just really close."
Residents,
backed by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and other politicians, say they want buffer zones at both ends of the runway
that would help protect the neighborhood if a jet overshot the tarmac. Such a buffer would most likely spell the end for certain
faster aircraft (including, possibly, the Gulfstream IV, Cessna Citation X and similar planes).
In the past, the Federal
Aviation Administration has resisted, saying the airport could operate safely without them. But in recent months, the FAA
has softened that stance and is negotiating with the airport to find a compromise, such as installing engineered material
like soft concrete that would slow a runaway aircraft.
In recent years, Santa Monica's airport
has seen a dramatic increase in jet takeoffs and landings. One factor is the growth in fractional ownership. More companies
and individuals are buying shares of jets, entitling them to a certain number of flying hours. A quarter share, for example,
would represent 200 "occupied hours" over the aircraft's lifetime. With a $10-million plane, the share would cost $2.5 million.
"Our
business grows every year," said Glenn A. Hinderstein, a vice president of NetJets Inc., a fractional ownership company that
operates out of Santa Monica and other airports. It is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the company headed by
investment sage Warren E. Buffett, a pioneer in the field.
Passengers can arrive by limousine in ripped jeans and T-shirts,
board a jet and be whisked away in a matter of minutes.
In addition to Schwarzenegger, who lives nearby, neighbors
over the years have spotted such celebrity jet-setters as John Travolta, Don Johnson, Bill Cosby, Merv Griffin, Robert Redford
and Cruise.
The roughly 18,000 yearly
jet-aircraft operations (as takeoffs and landings are known) at Santa Monica Airport — up from fewer
than 1,200 in 1983 — account for about 13% of the airport's traffic. They are about evenly split between jets that are
generally slower and smaller and those that are faster and larger.
The airport was designed, decades ago, for slower,
smaller aircraft with approach speeds of less than 121 knots (136 mph). Over time, however, the fleet mix has gradually shifted
until now the fastest aircraft fly in at speeds as great as 185 mph. They account for about half of the jets using the facility.
For these
faster planes, FAA standards call for runway safety areas (similar to runaway-truck ramps on steep roads and highways). In
an emergency, a plane can enter the safety area without damaging the aircraft or injuring those on board.
The FAA,
however, determined some time ago that the Santa Monica Airport could safely operate without these end-of-runway areas, as long
as pilots followed proper procedures.
Despite that assurance, residents and the city, backed by Waxman, have persisted
in pushing for safety zones. They note that neither end of the existing east-west runway has any sort of buffer to give an
out-of-control plane extra room to stop.
"The basic issue here is that the airport is embedded in a residential neighborhood,"
said Cathy Larson, who lives in Sunset Park at the airport's western edge. "If a larger aircraft, like a Gulfstream IV, were to overrun,
it would end up plowing through several homes and causing not just monetary damage but loss of life."
A number of small-plane
crashes have occurred over the years in the vicinity of Santa Monica Airport. In March, television game show host Peter Tomarken and his wife,
Kathleen, died when his single-engine plane crashed into Santa Monica
Bay soon after departure.
Although residents agree that safety
is the highest priority, noise is by far the biggest irritant. The airport's noise ordinance is strict, but, commissioner
Tal said, the noise levels are sometimes violated. First-time offenders, who account for many of the violations, get off with
a warning. Repeat offenders usually pay their fines.
Then there is air pollution. Los Angeles residents who live just
east of the airport say they take the brunt of a tremendous amount of soot, odors and fumes from the jet traffic, particularly
as aircraft rev up before departure.
"The jet kerosene is so thick it's like having 10 school buses parked in front
of your house," said Martin Rubin, founder and director of Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution, an activist group.
Regional air quality officials recently installed pollution-monitoring
equipment in one resident's yard.
The airport has been the focus of years of battles, especially after jets began
using it. At one point, the Santa Monica City Council voted to close the facility, then finally agreed in 1984 to a settlement
with the FAA that kept it open but imposed strict noise rules.
Some general aviation pilots who have long used Santa Monica Airport lament how the fancy planes have changed the feel of the once homey
airfield.
"The character of the place has changed," said entrepreneur Stephen Wyle, who is sometimes accompanied by
his son, actor Noah Wyle, in his small plane.
"When they started letting jets in, it became much more of a corporate,
business destination," he added.
*
Times staff
writer Jennifer Oldham contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jetset22jun22,0,4381685.story
FREE
VENICE BEACHHEAD June, 2006
Getting a grasp on a greased pig - by Martin Rubin
Click here to read just this article.
Or Click here to download PDF of this issue (big download) and go to page seven.
The LookOut news – June 2, 2006 Airport Bill
Flies without Amendments By Olin Ericksen, Staff Writer Click here to go to the article.
Santa Monica Daily Press – Wednesday, May 31,
2006
All eyes on the city’s airport pollution issue.
Guest Column by
Martin Rubin
Click here to download this edition, and go to page #4
The LookOut
news
Airport Bill Gains Momentum By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer
May 18, 2006 -- The Los Angeles City Council Wednesday threw its weight behind a controversial effort to
gauge possible air pollution blowing from Santa Monica Airport
into adjacent neighborhoods. Read more...
The Argonaut May 18, 2006 Mar Vista
Community Council supports Ted Lieu's bill
BY VINCE ECHAVARIA
By Olin Ericksen Staff Writer
May 9 -- A State bill that would force Santa Monica Airport to keep
statistics to help gauge the effects of aircraft pollution on the health of nearby residents is receiving a turbulent response
from local officials, despite vocal backing by key Los Angeles and California legislators. Read more...
The
Argonaut April 27, 2006
Santa Monica
Airport: Concerned Residents speak up about airport pollution;
politicians say they share feelings
BY ANITA VARGHESE
Click to read more
Los Angeles Times January 15, 2006
Running out of runway
By Carol Mithers and Cathy Larson, Carol Mithers is a journalist. Cathy Larson chairs the Friends of Sunset Park Airport
Committee.
IN FEBRUARY
2005, the pilot of a business jet aborted a takeoff from Teterboro
Airport in New Jersey but was unable to stop the plane at the end of the runway. It skidded across 1,000 feet of runway, a grass area, a
highway and a parking lot, then crashed into a warehouse and caught fire. In May, much the same thing happened at Brownwood Airport in Texas.
This time, the careening jet hit a fence and trees, crossed a road and came to rest about 1,300 feet beyond the runway. Evacuating
crew and passengers spotted fuel leaking around the craft's left wing.
If a similar accident were to occur at Santa Monica Airport, where about 9,000 jets of comparable size annually take off and
land, the out-of-control plane would smash into a densely populated residential neighborhood just 250 feet west of the runway.
A jet-fuel fire could wipe out five city blocks with hundreds of homes — and almost certainly kill some residents. Why
won't the Federal Aviation Administration let the city prevent that accident from happening?
The problem at Santa Monica Airport is basic. The facility, built in 1926, was designed to accommodate aircraft of
a different time. Its single runway is 5,000 feet long — shorter than those at Teterboro and Brownwood. There is a steep drop-off at its western end, so houses nearby actually sit below it. Neither end has a buffer zone
to give a plane in trouble extra space to stop. For the many years that only small propeller planes flew out of Santa Monica, that flaw wasn't too critical.
But in the last four years, there has been an explosive increase in jets —
big ones — at the airport. About half the approximately 18,000 yearly jet operations at Santa Monica involve planes with wingspans of 35 feet to 64 feet. The wingspan of the biggest jet using the airport, the Gulfstream
IV, is nearly 80 feet. With a full fuel tank, the jet weighs more than 71,000 pounds. These planes take off or land about
1,000 times a year
FAA rules dictate that new airports handling jets this size must include runway safety areas of
1,000 feet. Regulations dating back to the 1970s require commercial airports to have safety zones. The rules haven't been
well enforced, but after the Teterboro crash, the Senate passed a bill requiring compliance by 2015.
But existing
airports aren't required to add safety areas if they don't currently have them. And the congressional mandate doesn't apply
to facilities such as Santa
Monica Airport, which are classified as "general aviation airports" rather than commercial.
The city of Santa Monica owns and operates the airport, while the FAA regulates all aspects of air safety. Since 2000, the city has sought
the agency's permission to create a runway safety zone. The FAA has refused.
In 2002, the city hired consultants to
craft a plan. They reported that lengthening the runway would require relocating, bridging or closing 23rd Street and Bundy Drive, as well as buying and bulldozing 138 houses and one commercial building. Cost:
$245 million.
Another possibility was carving safety areas out of the existing runway. The city liked that idea, but
the FAA didn't. Why? The airport would be unable to accommodate the biggest jets if the runway were shortened. In 2003, the
city's Airport Commission said it would recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance shortening the runway, but the
FAA said that action would be illegal. A safety area, wrote David L. Bennett, the agency's director of airport safety and
standards, was considered "a safety enhancement" — not "necessary." At a meeting with city officials that November,
the FAA agreed that the city would propose new recommendations on runway safety-area enhancements, and the agency would evaluate
its proposal.
In the autumn of 2004, the city of Santa Monica sent its detailed airport-design
standards study to the FAA. Austin Wiswell, chief of the aeronautics division of the California Department of Transportation,
also wrote a letter to Woodie Woodward, the FAA's associate administrator for airports, threatening to withhold a state operating
permit to Santa Monica Airport because it lacked a runway safety area.
"The issue is simple," he wrote.
"Santa Monica Municipal Airport has insufficient runway safety areas and wishes to correct the design standard
discrepancy in the interest of public safety. What problem would the Federal Aviation Administration have with this proposal?"
That's
our question too. More than a year later, the jets keep landing, the odds of disaster keep going up — and the FAA still
hasn't responded.
LA Daily News – November 25, 2005
Asthma, pollution studied Team gets grant to find link between
them
Hoping to show how microscopic
particles in air pollution can cause asthma, heart disease, low birth weight and other conditions, the EPA has awarded an
$8 million grant to a Southern California research team.
The money will allow the Southern California Particle Center to continue
its groundbreaking work, funding four new investigations into the health impacts of particles that are 1/100 the diameter
of a human hair.
"What we've shown in the last five years is the scope of the problem and
how many different health end points exist, at current (pollution) levels," said Dr. John Froines, a professor at the University
of California, Los
Angeles, School
of Public Health and the principal investigator at the particle center.
"We're now trying to answer the question of what is it about particles
that causes these effects and what do we have to do to improve the situation."
Particulate matter is created from the exhaust of gasoline- and diesel-fueled
vehicles and from fires and industrial pollution. Composed of microscopic bits of acids, chemicals, metals, dusts and allergens,
it can reach deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream and even damage cells.
With its grant, the Environmental Protection Agency hopes to understand
which pollution sources and which kinds of particulate matter may be responsible for unhealthy air, said Stacey Katz, assistant
director of the agency's National Center for Environmental Research.
"We've made great strides from the early days with epidemiology studies
showing particulate matter and premature death but nobody could understand biologically how that could happen."
One of the center's projects will examine how particulate matter can cause
asthma, which has been a big concern for public health officials who struggle to understand why cases of the respiratory ailment
have tripled over the last 20 years.
Researchers can't prove with 100 percent certainty that air pollution
causes asthma, although researchers recently determined that Southern
California children who play sports in areas with high
air pollution are at greater risk of asthma and children who live near freeways are more likely to develop the disease.
The Southern
California team also placed allergic mice near busy freeways
and found the animals closest to traffic had the worst airway inflammation and stronger allergic responses.
For the new study, Froines wants to follow the path of particles in the
body and understand the biological reactions they spur in the body that can cause asthma.
"If you think about it, there's a process between exposure and the ultimate
disease and there's a series of steps between them," Froines explained. "We're trying to define those steps."
Another team will study impacts of pollution and particulates on nursing
home residents with cardiovascular disease. Their work expands on research that links particulate matter pollution with an
increased number of hospital admissions and heart-related deaths.
The Southern California Particle Center's work could eventually affect
regulations on tail pipe emissions, diesel truck pollution and increased port traffic, which are under the jurisdiction of
the EPA.
The center includes
researchers from the University of Southern
California and University
of California, Irvine.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
The
Courier-Journal Louisville, Kentuky
Study indicates airport is major source of toxic chemical Facility's impact
on smog slight
By James Bruggers jbruggers@courier-journal.com The Courier-Journal
If Louisville International Airport were an industrial facility, it would be one of the top two or three sources of a toxic chemical deemed to be among
the most dangerous in the region's air.
That chemical is 1,3-butadiene, which was singled out in a 2003 monitoring
study as the main toxic threat to public health in Louisville's air because it can cause cancer and other illnesses.
But overall, when it comes to the type of pollution that produces summer
smog, the airport contributes only a small amount -- about 1 percent.
Those are among the preliminary findings of the airport's first comprehensive
study of its air pollution. A summary of the study, which examined all sources -- from airplane engines to shuttle buses --
was presented yesterday to the Louisville Regional Airport Authority Board. Experts even accounted for paving and paint used
to put stripes on runways.
Airplanes were the largest single source of air pollution from the airport.
The study counted exhaust on the ground and during takeoffs and landings to a height of about 3,000 feet.
And because airplane engines were the biggest pollution source, it's
not clear how much can be done to reduce their emissions because local officials have no authority to regulate them.
But airport and local pollution control officials said there are steps
the airport could take to reduce the airport's contribution to both ground-level ozone, a key ingredient in smog, and the
so-called hazardous air pollutants, such as 1,3-butadiene, that are being regulated under the city's new Strategic Toxic Air
Reduction program.
Art Williams, director of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District, said, "We are at a point where all opportunities are important."
When the final report with recommendations is completed in January, airport
officials and local regulators said they would use the document to determine what those opportunities might be.
Tom Bacigalupi, who lives on Caldwell Avenue
in the Germantown neighborhood northeast of the airport, said he appreciates that the airport will
consider ways to reduce pollution. "But you aren't going to calm it down altogether," he said, speculating that the airport
would continue to grow.
Karen Scott, the airport's deputy executive director for planning and
operations, told the board that the study will provide "a baseline to measure progress as we go forward."
But she also told the board that they would need to make some decisions.
"Is our mission to reduce our emissions? If we do, how do we go forward
with that?"
Williams said the airport could explore the use of less polluting ground-support
equipment, and equip more gates with electrical hook-ups so planes don't have to use an auxiliary engine to keep air conditioning,
heat and on-board electricity running.
Of the airport's 23 gates, just 13 are equipped with power outlets for
airplanes, officials said.
Williams said he and his staff have been meeting with airport officials
to discuss the study, and that it appears the consultants who prepared it -- CDM, which is based in Louisville and Raleigh, N.C. -- did a good job.
Air pollution officials said they won't know how the STAR
program might affect the airport until next year, because the program initially targets industrial plants.
While the potential for emission reductions is unclear, Williams said
pollution cuts would help make it easier for Louisville-area residents to breathe.
Ozone can trigger asthma attacks and aggravate diseases such as emphysema
and bronchitis. "There is no therapeutic level of air pollution," Williams said.
The study comes as airports across the nation have faced increased scrutiny
of their emissions, which Williams notes have not been as closely regulated as some other sources.
In part, that's because local and state agencies have little power; an
international body under the United Nations determines rules for those emissions.
On butadiene levels, the study estimated emissions from all sources --
but the vast majority from airplane engines -- to be 14,689 pounds. That put it roughly on par with Zeon Chemicals in the
Rubbertown area of western Louisville. That company emitted 18,000 pounds of the chemical last year, and expects to
cut that to about 15,000 pounds or less this year, said Tom Herman, the plant's environmental manager.
The region's largest industrial source of butadiene is the American Synthetic
Rubber Co., also in the Rubbertown area.
Because of new pollution controls, the company expects to reduce its
emissions of butadiene by 60,000 pounds next year, or about half of what it reported in 2003.
Motor vehicles are also considered significant sources of butadiene emissions.
Mary Rose Evans, who lives in Parkway
Village and represents airport neighbors on the airport board, said she was pleased the study had been
conducted.
People who live near
the airport have been concerned about air quality in addition to the noise and relocation issues that have grabbed more attention,
and urged the study be done, she said. "It's important for the airport to be a good corporate citizen."
Santa Monica Mirror - November 16-22, 2005
__________________________________________________________
LA WEEKLY - SEPTEMBER 23 - 29, 2005
I want to thank the LA WEEKLY for this edition that is dedicated to our serious Los Angeles air pollution problem. You
can read some of the articles below. Again thanks for this comprehensive report!!
Martin Rubin -
Director of: Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution
A Special Issue Clear and Present Danger: What You Can't See Can Kill You
Los Angeles' skies sure look better than they did decades ago. Less lung-stinging
ozone hangs over downtown and the deep bourbon hues of summertime skies are fainter than ever before. But looks are deceiving.
A new threat haunts the air we breathe — particles tinier than a virus; so small that, in the diesel-belching ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach, more
than a million of them fit in a marble-sized chunk of air. These ultrafine particles become lodged in our lungs and hearts
and are the culprit behind growing cancer rates. Some 9,600 people will die this year in California
because of a smog-related disease. This amounts to a public-health emergency. Why, then, are only a handful or scientists,
doctors and public officials responding to the challenge?
Clear and Present Danger
The Air
That We Breathe Just when it looked like we might win the war on smog, a new
and more deadly form of air pollution stalks Los Angeles by WILLIAM J. KELLY
As the plane banks from
the Mojave Desert over the San
Bernardino Mountains and heads into the Los Angeles basin, I begin to lose my 20,000-foot view of the rocks and forests below.
They barely poke through the haze,
a dense and uneven soup of gray caused by the daily routines and demands of a growing economy, which burns 21 million gallons
of motor fuel and 2.7 million cubic feet of natural gas a day.
From my vantage point high above L.A., I am not at all surprised
by the growing body of research that suggests this noxious blend of particle pollution is killing thousands of people who
breathe it in the houses, businesses, factories and shopping malls that dot the land along the 80-mile approach into Los Angeles International Airport.
But once we’re on the ground, it looks like a relatively clear day. The mass arrays
of particles — excreted by gasoline- and diesel-powered engines — are impossible to detect. But they have not
gone away. These microscopic specks — more than a million of them can be found in a marble-sized chunk of air in the
smoggiest parts of Southern California — are only visible when sunlight reflects off them.
What
16 million people in the L.A. basin can’t see is sickening and killing them at rates only now becoming known. Every year,
9,600 people statewide die from cancer and respiratory problems caused by air pollution, most of them in Southern California, says state toxicologist
Bart Ostro. Reports released last month by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) show just how dangerous
it can be to breathe the air in parts of Los Angeles County where these minute particles are fouling people’s bodies and becoming lodged in their lungs
and hearts. The highest cancer rates in the county are found near the twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
where as many as one of every 200 residents is expected to get a pollution-related cancer during their lifetime.
“The
current air we are breathing is damaging the health of all humans,” says Dr. John Peters, director of the Southern California Environmental
Health Sciences Center at USC, whose groundbreaking research has shown just how harmful the
tiniest particles can be. “We need to improve air quality.” (See“The Smog Doctor,” page 30.)
This
new health menace — which may be the unwitting consequence of pollution-control devices on vehicles — arrives
just as Los Angeles residents and politicians have grown complacent after decades of watching gradual cleansing of the air. No longer
are Stage One smog alerts commonplace, as they were in 1976, when people were urged on 102 days to remain indoors to avoid
eye-stinging ozone. Even at the height of the summer, along the smog belt from Burbank to Riverside, smog conceals the San Gabriel and the San Bernardino mountains on far fewer days than at the height of the smog wars in the 1970s and into the early 1990s.
The
air appears so clean on most days that, outside the port area, where convoys of thousands of diesel trucks and ships poison
the air, there are few rallying cries heard for clean air. But residents in most pockets of the L.A. basin, from San Marino to Compton, from Westwood to Boyle Heights, are suffering — many unknowingly — at the hands of a public-health hazard scientists are only beginning
to fully understand.
L.A.’s air police — the AQMD and the statewide Air Resources Board (ARB) — have
not fully responded to this latest danger, in part because it is not clear what can be done about it. Some scientists believe
the limits of technology have been reached when it comes to tinkering with cleaner ways to operate fossil-fuel engines. The
search for zero-emissions automobiles has been slowed by powerful car-industry lobbies, as well as by political appointees
to the statewide air board, who do not see the urgency to develop a car that runs on electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells.
Industries
elude regulation through their influence on William Burke, the AQMD board’s chairman, and Barry Wallerstein, the executive
officer, who continue to allow businesses to trade in air-pollution rights and are now discussing expanded trading for area
oil refineries. It’s true that they often propose ambitious regulations, but frowning on controversy, they water many
of them down, or simply wait — sometimes years — to adopt them. In response to oil-industry concerns, for instance,
AQMD has relaxed a proposal to minimize smoke and noxious odors from refinery flares, even before bringing it to its own board
for consideration.
At the same time as the threat grows from particle pollution, the region is stalling in its three-decade-long
struggle against lung-burning ozone. Earlier this year, the Bush administration took the pressure off by extending a key deadline
for Los Angeles. Bush eliminated the decades-old one-hour federal ozone standard and the 2010 deadline for the region to meet it.
The one-hour standard (based on the day's worst hour of pollution) is supposed to keep ozone from rising high enough to cause
acute health effects. In its place, Bush let stand the more rigorous eight-hour standard set by President Clinton. However,
he extended the deadline for meeting that standard to 2021, giving the region 11 more years to clean up pollution. The administration
also undercut the intentions of Congress and the federal Clean Air Act of 1970, which granted highly polluted areas like California and Los Angeles the power to issue special orders to businesses to clean up the air. Bush and his appointees have blocked cleaner
trucks here, required the use of dirty ethanol in gasoline, and moved to ensure the dominance of fossil fuel.
“For
me, it’s troubling to look at a 30-year trend of improving air quality and then we hit the brakes,” says Gail
Ruderman Feuer, a former senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and now an L.A. Superior Court judge.
Given
the toll of death and sickness and the rapid pace of discoveries documenting the extent of damage caused by particle pollution,
the unhealthy state of our air amounts to a public-health emergency. Yet no elected official will step forward to declare
such a crisis. At a time when politicians and smog-fighting agencies should be unveiling new initiatives to combat air pollution,
they are retreating.
Congressional leaders, including Westside Democrat Henry Waxman, who helped tighten the Clean
Air Act in 1990, should be leading the campaign to reduce pollution at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
But he’s largely been relegated to the sidelines now.
In Sacramento, L.A.’s delegation should be demanding new laws
to deal with sprawl, the trucking industry and restoring uncompromising air standards. But too often the best legislation,
such as efforts by Democratic state Senator Alan Lowenthal of Long
Beach, to crack down
on diesel pollution at the ports fails because it is seen as a threat to business.
At the city level, Los Angeles Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa and his environment-friendly Harbor Commission should reject his predecessor’s “no net increase”
plan for the ports, and find ways to reduce pollution that sickens and kills adults and children because of the deadly convoy
of 30,000 trucks leaving the port every day. For now, Villaraigosa isn’t thinking big enough: “I’ve been
on record as supporting the no-net-increase proposal from the beginning. One of the things they’re going to have to
figure out is how we pay for it,” the mayor says. “A lot of work was done by the former commission on it, in conjunction
with the community, and I think we ought to build on that work.”
Politicians at all levels of government should
be bringing together scientists and residents to propose ways for local, state and federal authorities to address the crisis.
Eradicating life-threatening pollution from our skies will require that politicians make public health the top priority —
more important than even economic growth. Leaders with such a focus are rare. I know this firsthand; after 13 years as press
spokesman for the AQMD, I resigned in 2001, troubled by the creeping corporate influence that weakened the agency.
The
absence of strong leadership in the clean-air struggle has dark consequences, and they can be seen every day at hospitals,
where doctors treat asthmatics and others in respiratory distress.
“Air pollution has been likened to passive
smoking,” says Kaiser emergency-room physician and firebrand clean-air activist John Miller, noting that smoking has
been banned in public spaces, including the workplace. “Why the hell do we let these industries create a passive-smoking
situation for millions?”
Profiling a Killer
Deep within the heart of UCLA’s biomedical complex, researchers have been studying a new form of
deadly pollution known as ultrafine particles. They may be the most damaging to human health of all pollutants in the sky.
The
Southern California Particle Center and Supersite is located in an unassuming red-brick building on the UCLA campus, just
across the street from the university’s ultramodern-looking Neuroscience Research Center.
The
windowless halls of the particle center are covered with slightly worn linoleum and lit by bright fluorescent lights. Some
offices are stuffed with scientific papers, while other rooms house scientific equipment.
John Froines — a passionate
scientist who was one of the Chicago Seven — directs the center. Since his days as an activist protesting the Vietnam
War, he has become one of the pre-eminent toxicologists in the nation, graduating from Yale University with a doctorate in chemistry. The now white-haired, bespectacled Froines has traced the source of the deadly particle
pollution to the devices that have been placed on trucks since the late 1990s. Newer cars also contribute.
This new
category of particle pollution — known as ultrafine particles — may be the most damaging to human health of all
pollutants in the sky. It’s associated with heart disease, strokes and losses in lung function, and suspected of contributing
to brain diseases including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Moreover, the levels of the tiny particles are
rising. A recent study completed at UCLA shows that the number of these ultrafine particles in the air has increased by 62
percent or more in parts of the L.A. Basin since 1997.
“There’s a gap between the science
developing and the regulatory view of the problem,” says Froines. He believes the California Air Resources Board and
federal Environmental Protection Agency will have to re-examine automotive emissions standards to get a handle on ultrafine
particles.
“We are having major issues before us at a time we think we’ve made some improvements,”
says Froines. “As the mass of particles has declined over the years, the number of particles has been increasing. Those
ultrafine particles are the most toxic.”
The problem is worse on freeways and busy highways, he says. Measurements
show each cubic centimeter of air along the busy Long Beach Freeway in Los Angeles
can contain a million or more of the ultrafine particles. By contrast, the same quantity of air found at the beach has only
hundreds of the particles. Primary exposure occurs when people are in cars or live, work or study around busy roadways and
freeways. As the ultrafine particles move downwind, they join together into larger particles.
Froines’ concerns
are echoed by researchers at the University of Minnesota, who have been chasing cars and other vehicles to measure levels of ultrafine particles coming
out of tailpipes. Emissions standards have done little to control ultrafine particles, and in some cases they may be increasing
as visible black soot is removed from diesel vehicles, says Winthrop Watts, a research associate in the mechanical engineering
department at the university. Watts predicts that the EPA eventually will set a new standard to address
ultrafine particles, one he hopes will limit the number of particles allowed in the air.
Studies conducted in the Caldecott
Tunnel in the East San Francisco Bay area show that ultrafine particles have more than doubled, increasing by 143
percent between 1997 and 2004. Froines reasons that the same pollution controls that are eliminating the big particles are
causing the increase in ultrafine particles, which form as vapors condense on car and truck tailpipes. Normally, the smaller
particles would accumulate on the bigger ones as they leave the tailpipes. However, as new catalysts required by regulators
remove the bigger particles, ultrafine particles remain in the air until they glom on to one another, typically about 100
yards downwind of freeways and other roads. They expose people to bigger doses of pollution by penetrating deeper into the
body than the larger particles.
Higher-temperature, higher-efficiency engines also increase the number of ultrafine
particles, says Froines.
Froines and others worry that rising levels of ultrafine particles may be erasing much of
the health benefit of controlling the larger particles, or even making things worse.
A federal EPA scientist who would
speak only on a background basis acknowledged that trillions of ultrafine particles form from vapors in automotive exhaust.
However, he maintained that EPA emissions standards — which manufacturers plan to meet on new diesel trucks by installing
oxidation catalysts beginning in 2007 — most likely will reduce ultrafine particle levels too, despite what Froines
and others are finding in their research. He did acknowledge, as Froines pointed out, that diesel engines built since October
2002 operate at temperatures about 30 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than older engines, because of their use of systems
that recirculate hot exhaust through the engine to reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions.
Watts, at the University of Minnesota, maintained that even though the oxidation catalysts catch some exhaust vapors, it is still possible that the combination
of hotter temperatures and removal of larger particles will result in a net increase in ultrafine particles in diesel exhaust.
Gasoline-powered
cars also seem to be emitting more ultrafine particles because they use pollution-control systems similar to those used in
trucks to control nitrogen oxides and have been built to operate at higher, more efficient temperatures as time has passed,
says Froines.
Once inhaled, ultrafine particles pass through the wall of the lung cells and invade the mitochondria,
which produce the energy that cells need to live, according to a joint study conducted by UCLA and USC. The damage to the mitochondria eventually reduces the ability of the cells to function normally, thereby reducing
overall lung function. Reduced lung function makes it harder for people to fight off infections and cope with allergens, as
well as to extract needed oxygen from each breath.
The particles also penetrate through the lung tissue and are carried
by the bloodstream into the brain, Froines says. Researchers, he adds, are inquiring into whether the particles — which
contain toxic metals and hydrocarbons — may be linked to degenerative brain conditions like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
disease. The particles already are known to cause inflammation of the brain in rats, which can cause cell damage.
Likewise,
the ultrafine particles have been shown to contribute to heart disease and strokes. “The more particles, the thicker
the blood vessel,” observes USC's Dr. Peters. A study by Peters and researchers from Harvard University shows increased incidence of heart attacks following episodes of fine-particle
pollution in the atmosphere.
Dangers of the Status Quo
The urgency of the region’s war against smog largely evaporated in 2005. Even some of the foulest
air in San Bernardino County’s smog belt can’t inspire Democratic Assemblyman Joe Baca Jr. of Rialto to support clean-air legislation
in Sacramento. “I’m focused on jobs,” he says.
Instead
of devising plans to once and for all clean up the air, most politicians — even the ones doing the most to fight for
smog controls — are content with the status quo. Ex-Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn’s port commission proposed a
“no net increase” plan that will not reduce, but merely keep, emissions from the city’s massive port operation
at their current level. The port in neighboring Long Beach — ruled by a commission appointed by Mayor Beverly O’Neill
— won’t even go that far.
The shipping industries have put the region over a barrel on clean-air issues.
Behind the scenes, the industries that rely on diesel equipment — including freight shipping and construction —
say that if the public wants clean air, let the public pay for it. The industry threatens to move and take jobs away from
the region, acknowledges Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), who has led a legislative battle in Sacramento to make the industry clean up its own pollution. “I’m
always the job killer,” he says.
So far, shippers have successfully turned back any efforts to make them pay
for the burden they impose on health and quality of life. This year, the powerful railroad and shipping industries managed
to block Lowenthal’s bill to levy fees on goods moved through the port to establish a cleanup fund for the freight industry.
“They hired lots of lobbyists to kill my bill,” he says. The Schwarzenegger administration wouldn’t back
the bill either, believing instead that the public must pay a good part of the tab for cleaning up pollution from the shipping
industries.
Most of the cleanup of diesel emissions from trucks, buses, harbor craft, construction equipment, and other
diesel equipment is being financed by taxpayers through the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program.
Air-quality officials and environmentalists praise lawmakers and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for making the program permanent.
However, most of the money comes from everyday motorists, who pay up to $6 more to register their cars, plus added disposal
fees when they buy new tires. The industries that profit from moving goods and making diesel exhaust get a free ride.
The
sluggish pace of regulators sets the wrong tone for a response to a public-health crisis.
A case in point is a rule
AQMD promised in 2002. The regulation is supposed to protect communities already hard hit by toxic air pollution from any
worsening of their air as new sources of toxic gases, metals and other chemicals seek to open in their neighborhoods. Three
years later the rules still have not been adopted in the face of industry opposition as the agency continues to study them
and is prepared only to test the waters with a slimmed-down rule that would prevent new toxic sources from locating next to
schools. It would leave unaddressed existing sources of toxic pollution near schools, and renege on the original idea of protecting
whole neighborhoods that are overburdened with toxic air.
In Sacramento, an auto-industry suit successfully ended
the state’s zero-emissions electric-vehicle standard, so Schwarzenegger and Terry Tamminen, secretary of California's EPA, crafted a “hydrogen highways” program in its place. However, the program to foster a transition
to hydrogen-powered cars does not even seek to reduce air pollution. Most of the hydrogen will be made with fossil fuels instead
of renewable power. Consequently, its goal is simply “no net increase” in air pollution.
It’s all
too common for land-use and economic-development policies to conflict with clean-air policies. Earlier this year, for instance,
the ARB delayed guidelines recommending that cities not allow new housing and schools near busy and highly polluted freeways.
Cindy Tuck — a chief lobbyist for the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, which represents big
oil and other major industries — opposed making even nonbinding recommendations for setbacks from sources of pollution.
Later Schwarzenegger named her to lead the air board, replacing Gray Davis appointee Alan Lloyd, who stepped down as its chairman
to become Cal-EPA secretary. The state Senate refused to confirm her.
Action, in general, has stalled at the state
air board since Lloyd’s departure. “I have been concerned there is not enough activity going on to get to our
clean-air standards,” says Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Lung
Association in Sacramento.
Locally, sprawl continues as city council members and
county supervisors throughout the four-county region routinely approve massive housing developments, ignoring the burden placed
on the region’s congested freeways and skeletal public-transit systems. The Los Angeles City Council rubber-stamps customs
breaks for new import warehouses that are magnets for diesel trucks without environmental analyses.
Sprawl and auto-centered
development make it almost impossible to build a public-transit system that can move the majority of people in Southern California,
as developers pit one city against the next to compete for the development dollar. The region’s land-use and transportation
planning agency has no enforcement power, so motorists are forced to drive farther and farther to get to work.
“The
only way we can address our air-quality problem is by tackling land-use development,” says Feuer. “We as a society
are not doing anything to address the continuing problem of long-distance commutes.” People are beginning to commute
into the region from as far away as Bakersfield, she adds.
New threats loom too. Global warming is expected
to increase smog in summer, according to a study by the state air board. Emerging scientific research shows that the tiniest
and most unhealthful particles in the air emitted from vehicle tailpipes, power plants and other fossil-fuel-burning equipment
are on the rise.
The Powerless Smog Police
Not surprisingly,
after three generations of Californians have fought smog, the bad guys always seem to escape, suits unruffled, through an
edifice of air-pollution laws and regulations riddled with loopholes and exceptions designed to assure that no shareholders
miss their quarterly dividend or executive his bonus.
At a time of record profits for the oil industry, recent AQMD
statistics show almost a third of gas stations add tons of hydrocarbon emissions to the air each day by failing to meet standards
that require them to keep nozzles from dripping and to capture 95 percent of gasoline vapors when motorists fill their tanks.
The high level of noncompliance comes after the ARB in 2000 adopted regulations to require the stations to install self-diagnostic
systems that would automatically shut off leaky pumps, beginning in 2004. However, the rules still have not taken effect because
of “technological problems,” says Jerry Martin, a spokesman for ARB.
Meanwhile, rather than raising fees
high enough to hire more inspectors and staff, the AQMD board cut its staff by 28 positions last year. AQMD has 114 inspectors
to regulate more than 30,000 businesses over an area of almost 11,000 square miles. Many of the businesses, including refineries,
power plants and chemical plants, operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The federal EPA, which is supposed to oversee
state and local pollution-control agencies, has not reviewed AQMD’s enforcement program, says Matt Haber, who heads
the air-pollution program at the federal agency’s San Francisco office.
At the state level, the ARB has been failing when it comes to adopting standards
for clean-fueled trucks and buses, says Tim Carmichael of the Coalition for Clean Air. The state could have adopted the so-called
clean fleet rules statewide after truck and bus makers challenged rules adopted by the AQMD to require cities here to shift
to clean-fueled vehicles. A spokesperson for the air board says the agency will adopt standards one by one for different types
of diesel vehicles beginning later this year.
Just last week, ARB's board declined to adopt clean-air standards for
school buses amid complaints about the expense.
Carmichael also points out that when Schwarzenegger took office he promised
to cut air pollution statewide in half by 2010. “As far as we know, there’s been no action on that since he’s
been governor. They don’t even have a plan at this point.”
Unrestrained economic growth is another contributor
to the ongoing pall of air pollution that hangs over the region.
No agency or lawmaker — not even most environmentalists
— will question the holy grail of growth, no matter what the long-term effect on air pollution, public health and quality
of life. Even Lowenthal — hailed for his sponsorship of a bill to place fees on containers moved through the ports to
finance pollution controls — believes that California’s shipping industry must continue to grow. His legislation
would not cap port growth to control pollution, it would only require both ports to adopt a “no net increase”
policy on pollution. “There’s too much at stake,” he says, to let the industry wither.
If the pollution
cannot be mitigated with affordable technology, people will just have to live and die with it. Even the federal health standards
for ozone and particle pollution still allow for 3,100 deaths a year statewide — saving just 6,500 of the 9,600 who
now die each year from lung and heart ailments related to air pollution, not to mention cancer.
To meet those standards
by 2021, the AQMD, the state air board and the federal EPA will need to cut 446 tons per day of emissions using so-called
“black box” measures, which either involve wholly new control technologies or a reduction in the cost of existing
technologies. Among them, for instance, are extending clean-fuel requirements to private fleets, as well as public fleets
of trucks and buses; enabling ships to use onshore electricity while docked, so they do not have to run their engines to make
power; and installing solar- and other forms of renewable-power systems to make electricity for the region. Most of the technologies
are available today and could be required by the state air board, AQMD, the ports, and other regulatory bodies.
Meanwhile,
the Bush administration has forced California to use ethanol in gasoline, even though it increases air pollution. It has relaxed standards that
are supposed to prevent pollution from increasing when businesses expand or open anew. Sacramento lawmakers had to enact a state law to restore
the original standards within California, but even with that they are far from airtight.
The administration
sided with automakers in challenging and overturning the state’s electric-vehicle standard, and backs their campaign
against California standards calling for new cars with lower emissions of greenhouse gases
that contribute to global warming. The administration also sided with truck and bus makers when they sued to block enforcement
of AQMD clean-fuel standards for public trucks and buses used to collect garbage, provide public transit and meet other needs.
Congress’ Failure to Help
Not even California’s congressional delegation seems able to clear our skies. Last spring, I witnessed the spectacle of once-powerful
Representative Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) trying unsuccessfully to get his colleagues in the House of
Representatives to approve a study on how to voluntarily reduce use of polluting petroleum. It happened during debate on the
sweeping energy bill. Waxman offered an amendment that would have required the federal government to try to reduce petroleum
use by 4 percent by 2013, through measures including recommending that motorists keep their tires inflated and federal government
support of speed-limit enforcement. His amendment would not have required automakers to build cars with better mileage.
“In
this House, even this is controversial, as amazing as it may seem,” said Waxman, arguing for his amendment. “This
seems to be the only place in America where trying not to waste oil is a bad thing.”
The energy
bill, now law, hands out tens of billions of dollars to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. “It ignores science,
to ease the way for polluters,” says Waxman, whose arguments were largely ignored. His amendment lost, with 262 House
members voting “no” and only 166 “yes.”
Waxman’s failure to win approval of a simple
study and voluntary measures is symptomatic of how California’s Democratic delegation has been isolated by the Republican
majorities in the House and Senate, no longer able to pass bills or even convene oversight hearings on the Republican-dominated
federal EPA.
Upon reflection, Waxman told me that the vote was “a defining moment.”
He continued:
“When the amendment was voted down, I knew Congress was not serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. We
need to stop our dependence on foreign oil. Starting this process sooner rather than later is the key to protecting our pristine
and most valued natural areas and making the environment cleaner and safer for all Americans.”
License to Pollute
A business-as-usual climate impedes the decision-making by the
agencies charged with improving L.A.’s
air.
Large industries — like power producers and refineries — benefit from emissions-trading and other
regulatory loopholes for new or expanded facilities, pacts that allow tons of new pollution on the smoggiest days, even though
the intent of the Clean Air Act is to prevent economic expansion from increasing pollution.
Typical is a planned power
plant in Riverside, which has the worst particle pollution in the nation. The AQMD has proposed a permit for the facility, to be operated
by Riverside’s municipal utility, which would allow more than an additional
ton of particulate matter to be emitted each month. Smog-forming nitrogen-oxide emissions could be concentrated in the smoggiest
time of the year too.
The loophole stems in part from the AQMD’s pollution-trading program, known as the Regional
Clean Air Incentives Market, or RECLAIM. Before that program took effect, the agency’s new-source review rule required
major industrial facilities to meet daily emissions limits. RECLAIM, however, eliminated this requirement, placing operators
under more flexible, annual emissions limits.
The old new-source review requirement mandated that operators offset
emissions on the smoggiest days by reducing pollution at other facilities they ran or by buying expensive credits from other
polluters who had reduced their emissions more than the required amount on the same days. In this way, total emissions would
not increase on any day.
However, under RECLAIM, only total annual emissions must be offset, which means that on the
smoggiest days when the power plant runs, there will be an increase in emissions.
Major power plants in Los Angeles are able to emit more pollution under the emissions-trading program too. After being recently rebuilt, the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power’s Valley Generating Station alone will be able to emit 142 tons a year of nitrogen oxides,
which contribute to ozone and fine-particle pollution, according to a report by Environment California, up from 10 tons of
emissions in 1995. A good part of those emissions will occur on smoggy summer days.
Overall, the trading program has
provided loopholes for eight new or reopened power plants constructed in the region since the energy crisis, according to
the California Energy Commission. Other energy companies benefit too. For instance, the California Energy Commission projects
that gasoline use will increase by 48 percent by 2020. Demand for natural gas is going up too.
A lack of coordination
between government agencies makes air pollution worse.
There is a jumble of single-purpose government agencies, often
working at cross-purposes and using artificially constrained methods of analyzing the impacts of their decisions. When things
do not work as planned, they often descend into bickering and finger-pointing among themselves.
In the latest case,
after years of ineffectiveness in its efforts to stop the growth of pollution from diesel trains, the AQMD may derail a voluntary
agreement that the state Air Resources Board entered into with the railroad industry to reduce emissions by 20 percent. The
agency and environmental groups say it is unenforceable. They also are upset that the state air board and railroads negotiated
it without local representation.
However, ARB maintains that railroad emissions have been growing for many years and
that the AQMD failed to do anything about it. “The bottom line was that table had been empty for many years,”
says state air board spokesman Martin.
The agreement is voluntary, he says, because even the state has no legal authority
to regulate the industry, which is protected from most local or state requirements under the interstate-commerce clause of
the U.S. Constitution.
Increasing diesel emissions exposes flawed environmental and economic analysis by government
agencies with conflicting missions.
For example, moving goods on trains is more fuel-efficient and less polluting than
moving them on trucks, but cities seeking property taxes offer competing incentives to snare warehousing facilities. As a
consequence, warehouses are scattered throughout the area, leaving them no choice but to haul many of their imported goods
on the higher-polluting trucks.
Strong regional environmental analysis would solve the problem, says Michel Gelobter,
executive director of Redefining Progress, a sustainable-economics think tank. “It points to the need for looking at
the big picture,” he says.
In another example, Los
Angeles port officials heralded an agreement to expand one
rail yard and build another near the waterfront in a move that would eliminate trucks from the 710 freeway. However, the yards
would lie near the Hudson Elementary School in neighboring Long Beach, as well as houses. Up to a million trucks a year would carry
shipping containers to the rail yards from the ship terminals.
Finally, new concerns about global warming and dwindling
oil and natural-gas supplies complicate the task of cleaning up air pollution. Making cleaner gasoline and diesel fuel, for
instance, increases global-warming emissions because it takes more energy and oil. After Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf of Mexico, one of the Bush administration’s
first moves to assure an adequate supply of fuel to motorists was to temporarily waive clean-air standards for gasoline. The
state air board endorsed the change here in California earlier this month, in a move that will add 50 tons per day of ozone-forming hydrocarbons to the
air, statewide. As oil supplies tighten in the future, California will be under increasing pressure to accept dirtier fuels.
Responding to the Public-Health Emergency
So the shame of air pollution continues
in Los Angeles since smog began during World War II, when armament factories
boomed and people flocked here seeking new opportunities. Regulators have chipped away at the problem — reducing the
peak level of ozone by some three-quarters — but they have not solved it.
After years of steady improvement in
the 1990s, ozone levels have gone up and down in the years since 1999. For instance, the number of days in violation of the
federal standard for ozone dropped from 163 in 1990 to 111 in 1998. Since then, the number has wavered, hitting 120 days in
2003, then dropping to just 88 last summer, with its exceptionally cool weather. “We’ll see a little poorer scorecard
this year than last year,” says Joe Cassmassi, senior meteorologist for the AQMD. So far this year, the number of days
over the ozone standard is 81, and unhealthful levels of the pollutant are likely to occur for several more weeks into the
fall. The area has exceeded the discarded one-hour ozone standard 29 days, one more than the 28 days over the benchmark in
all of last year.
The agency still routinely cautions residents against exercise during summer because ensuing medical
research has shown that lower levels of ozone damage health more than was originally known. “We’re finding more
effects,” explains Dr. Ed Avol, a researcher at USC’s Environmental Health Services
Center.
The slow pace of regulatory authorities has left levels of air pollution
today that still send mothers and fathers racing their gasping, asthmatic children to hospital emergency rooms in the night.
Pollution still prematurely slows otherwise healthy middle-aged people with chronic respiratory diseases. It still grinds
down thousands a year with cancer, strokes, heart attacks and lung disease. They die unnoticed by the public eye, leaving
behind loved ones burdened by medical bills.
“We’re currently in a crisis,” says Todd Campbell, policy
director for the Coalition for Clean Air. “We haven’t had any progress in five years.”
To revive
the massive bureaucracies and rejuvenate the clean-air fight, lawmakers must play a major role.
In Congress, California
Democrats, including Representative Waxman, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barbara Boxer, need to persuade
their colleagues to push for more federal funding to clean up the ports, and to shift toward renewable forms of energy.
“We
must act now,” says Jon Slangerup, chief executive officer at Solar Integrated Technologies. “My primary fear
is we may be denied the chance to transition to renewables.” Slangerup adds that a massive oil and gas shock could drain
the economy, leaving the state and nation unable to invest in the equipment needed to shift toward renewable power and hydrogen
made with wind and solar power instead of fossil fuel.
Already, the state cannot get utilities to deploy enough renewable
power plants to keep up with a growing population’s rising demand for electricity. New houses and appliances are more
energy-efficient, but they are bigger and packed with more energy-gobbling devices than in times past. Southern California power producers are installing
more windmills and solar-power systems, but also more fossil-fueled power plants, like Burbank’s
Magnolia plant, which opened earlier this year.
In Sacramento, Schwarzenegger should shift his position and support fees on
shipments through the port to fund cleanup of diesel pollution, as proposed by Lowenthal.
Next year, legislators cannot
delay re-examining the environmental-bond initiative introduced by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley
(D-Woodland Hills), which would provide crucial funds for cleaner fuels, including hydrogen.
On a regulatory level,
the state air board should speed up adoption of rules to move trucks, buses and other equipment to cleaner fuels. The ARB
and AQMD must lead the charge to change state law, so that they begin to rein in sprawl and create communities that would
allow public transit to work. Facing similar pressure, Sacramento lawmakers merged the area’s county air-pollution control
districts into one district 30 years ago. Progress on smog ensued.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa should show
his green commitment by going beyond his predecessor’s no-net-increase policy at the ports, and by seeking to move the
LADWP more quickly toward renewable power. He might start by canceling planned investments to lengthen the life of aging LADWP
fossil-fuel plants, and spend the money on wind-, solar- and geothermal-energy development instead.
These and other
emerging ideas not only can help end the region’s air-pollution health emergency, but they work synergistically to combat
global warming and reduce dependence on fossil fuels from abroad. These strategies can eliminate traffic gridlock and rekindle
community in a metropolis increasingly walled off along lines of class, race, and urban and suburban lifestyles.
Ultimately,
though, the region must break its dependence on fossil fuel.
One solution is a massive move toward “zero-emissions
technologies,” such as Schwarzenegger’s hydrogen-highway plan. It envisions building a network of hydrogen fueling
stations that could be used to fill up cars that run on hydrogen and emit nothing but water vapor. The technology exists,
but is unlikely to be deployed in a significant way for at least 10 or 15 years, automakers and environmentalists alike agree.
There
are also questions about how the hydrogen will be produced. If it is made from natural gas or other finite fossil-fuel sources
it may not do enough to clean up the air, much less help solve the problems of fossil-fuel dependence and global warming.
The plan would allow two-thirds of the hydrogen to be made with fossil fuel. Making the hydrogen highway truly renewable will
require massive solar- and wind-power systems to produce the clean motor fuel from water by splitting it into its constituent
parts of hydrogen and oxygen with electricity.
“A day at the gas pump would pay for the first hundred hydrogen
stations,” says Jason Mark, director of clean vehicle programs for the Union of Concerned Scientists. California motorists spend more
than $100 million a day for gasoline. Yet, the $6.5 million state budget for the program this fiscal year will buy just three
hydrogen fueling stations and 14 hydrogen-powered vehicles, even though the governor’s plan calls for 100 stations and
2,000 vehicles by 2010.
Leveling
With the Public
As Los Angeles continues
its struggle toward clean air, there will be triumphs and setbacks. Through it all, the AQMD and other smog-fighting agencies
must adopt a policy of complete openness with the public they serve. People deserve to know the dangers they face in breathing
the air, and what is being done to improve it. The map on page 24 is based on a 1999 AQMD study showing areas where more than
1,500 people out of a million are likely to develop cancer. That is all that the agency would tell the public when it released
the map more than five years ago. Later, under pressure from environmental-justice activists, it grudgingly admitted that
the actual risk was higher in some communities. But it did not reveal those communities, or give precise numbers.
Before
I left the AQMD, disillusioned that progress on air pollution had ceased because of the encroachment of special interests,
people holding the actual cancer-risk numbers at the agency told me that they could not provide this explosive information
to the press and the public. I advised reporters to file a Public Records Act request. None did.
The agency cowered
to pressure. I sat through meetings where representatives of powerful industries argued that the risk numbers were too uncertain
to release and that they would cause undue alarm. The AQMD staff also had been severely pressured by city halls, legislators,
boards of realtors and chambers of commerce after publicizing which communities had the highest levels of ozone pollution
in Southern California. Realtors and chambers of commerce feared that property values would suffer. Never mind the children
whose parents bought a house in those communities.
Finally, the AQMD released the specific numbers for this story in
response to a Public Records Act request filed in August. Next year, the AQMD will update the cancer-risk report. The average
cancer risk in the region determined in the 1999 study was about 1,000 per million people, meaning that up to 14,000 people
living in greater Los Angeles can expect to get cancer simply through breathing.
“Those
numbers are getting worse,” says former NRDC lawyer Ruderman Feuer. Many scientists and environmentalists
expect the update to show the cancer risk has grown since 1999 because of the gathering cloud of diesel exhaust caused by
the rush of international trade. Shipments through the region’s ports have doubled over the past seven years, and are
projected to quadruple over the next 20 years.
It will be hard to reverse this trend, but we can start with small efforts.
On a Thursday night, I walk through the farmers market near my neighborhood in South Pasadena, next to the Gold Line light-rail station. The heat of the summer day has died down as I stroll among the stalls.
The corn, beans, lettuce and other produce sold here is mostly from the remaining nearby farms. It hasn’t been shipped
halfway around the world in a refrigerated vessel or the hold of an airplane. Local farmers have hauled it in pickup trucks.
People come home from work on the Gold Line — albeit in small numbers.
It may not seem like much in the giant
metropolis that stretches beyond these few blocks. Yet it’s a scene increasingly replicated throughout Southern California. It shows that people want choices — public transit, locally produced goods, a sense of community — if
only their leaders will provide them with the opportunity to get off the freeways and out of their cars. It shows people will
still support local production of goods and produce rather than buy the cheapest goods imported from abroad under a trail
of diesel soot.
Perhaps our leaders will do what’s needed so that the next generation of Southern Californians will breathe healthful
air. Because of promises they have made and broken over the past three decades, my generation never will.
Clear and Present Danger (cont.)
The
Smog Doctor John Peters and the science of children and dirty air by JUDITH LEWIS
When
he came out from New England to live under the slowly clearing skies of Los Angeles
in 1980, Dr. John Peters, like most newcomers, started thinking about smog. He wondered what permanent damage air pollution was doing to Southern Californians’ lungs. “I
kept asking, ‘Why doesn’t somebody study the chronic effects of air pollution?’” says Peters, now
a professor at the Keck School of Medicine and director of the Southern California Health Sciences Center at the University of Southern California. “Everybody knows air pollution makes your eyes water, and it makes you cough. And if that’s
all it does, well, maybe you get over that and it’s not so bad. But if there are chronic effects, then we ought to know,
and we really ought to be concerned.”
Until that point, Peters had focused almost exclusively on workplace exposure
to toxins; throughout the 1980s, the Harvard-educated professor of preventative medicine authored papers on lung cancer in
welders and kidney cancer in architects, and he had no intention of shifting his course: “I kept saying a study of the
chronic effects of air pollution should be done,” he says, “but I never thought I’d be the one to do it.”
Then,
in 1991, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) put out a call for just such a study, and Peters, along with a group of
researchers “who had been agitating about it,” including his USC colleagues
W. James Gauderman and Ed Avol, answered it. With the help of some of the world’s best health-outcome people, a raft
of environmentally minded statisticians and experts in “exposure assessment,” the team came up with a plan of
study. CARB accepted the proposal, and in 1993, Peters became the director of The Children’s Health Study, which began
with lung tests of nearly 4,000 fourth-, seventh- and 10th-graders in 12 geographically diverse communities — some inhaling
the region’s worst pollutants, some breathing air as clean as it comes.
At the outset, Peters suspected the results
would be useful, at best, to health-care professionals. He and his peers didn't expect to make the national news, and
they didn’t know that their study would become among the most comprehensive, long-term analyses of the effects of air
pollution on the developing lungs of children.
“As good scientists we were bound to be open-minded and accept
whatever we found, but we did not anticipate anything dramatic,” says Peters, sitting at a table in his second-floor
office at the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California. His office is spare and white but for a few bottles of fine red wine — “I like wine,” he admits.
He has just turned 70. He is tall and thin with a neatly trimmed white beard, and has the look of a man who has paid meticulous
attention to his health. He watches his language just as carefully, and speaks with the exactness of a researcher who’s
loathe to exaggerate. “Given that the air is so much cleaner than it used to be, I thought if there were any effects
they would be subtle and perhaps not even clinically significant.”
Some 75 published research papers later, here’s
what Peters and his team found: That the lungs of children growing up among the industrial warehouses of Mira Loma develop
up to 10 percent more slowly than those of their peers in the much cleaner air of Lompoc; that school absences for conditions
like wheezing and sore throats shoot up — sometimes nearly double — as ozone levels soar in the Inland Empire;
that, due to high levels of nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter, mostly from internal combustion engines, nearly five
times as many high-school graduates in Upland as teenagers in Santa Maria suffer from lung function far below normal —
a developmental deficit, the study concluded, from which these young people may never recover.
As a good scientist,
Peters won’t say he was shocked. “But I was surprised,” he allows. “We were all surprised the effects
were as significant as they are. It’s the same sort of functional impairment we see from smoking.”
The
Children’s Health Study recruited another 2,000 10-year-olds in 1996, bringing the total number of children observed
by the researchers close to 6,000, drawn from communities — from Lancaster to San Dimas, Lake Arrowhead to Lake Elsinore
— that were carefully selected for contrasts in air quality as well as high rates of education and home-ownership, what
Peters calls “indices of stability” as reported in the 1990 census. The stability factor reduced the possibility
that poor nutrition and social stress were contributing to high rates of respiratory illness: Unlike so many other environmental
problems, often heavily concentrated in poorer areas, air pollution transcends class. “It turns out that there isn’t
a high correlation between regional pollution and socioeconomic level,” says Peters. “Upland is a very upper-class community,
and it’s one of the most polluted. And a lot of the lower socioeconomic-status communities — Compton is a good example —
are not bad in terms of air quality. The air where I live, in San Marino, is probably worse.”
The team of researchers also turned up more specific, and sometimes eccentric, points:
Ice skaters, for instance, have a higher-than-average incidence of asthma due to high concentrations of pollutants trapped
in the cold air of indoor skating rinks. “Zambonis might be the cause of that,” says Peters. And according to
a 2002 article published in Lancet, athletes in general suffer in higher numbers from ozone pollution. “If you’re
exercising, you’re breathing up to 30 times as much as when you’re sitting still, so your exposure is magnified
tremendously,” says Peters. “The more sports you play, the more exercise and the more pollutants you’re
getting.” As a consequence, the study found that teenagers who play multiple team sports in high-ozone communities are
more likely to develop asthma than nonathletes. Where ozone levels are low, no such correlation between exercise and asthma
exists.
This was a startling discovery, says Dr. James Gauderman, who has authored several key papers and overseen
a team of data management types on the Children’s Health Study since 1996. “There’s a lot known about air
pollution exacerbating existing asthma, but there has not been a lot out there about air pollution causing asthma. Since we
had such a large group spread out across different towns with different pollution profiles, we had a large enough sample that
we could break it down: We could look at kids playing no team sports, kids playing some team sports and kids playing a lot
of team sports. And it was really only in that one group — kids playing a lot of team sports in a high-ozone community
— that we saw an increased risk of new cases.” Because it’s such a unique result, it can’t be confirmed
until another research team replicates it. “But if it holds up,” says Gauderman, “it could have some ramifications
in terms of how we counsel young athletes on when to play sports. We could tailor their activity so it’s not happening
during peak ozone times.”
Those “high-ozone communities” include the cities of Lancaster and Lake Arrowhead, where ozone rises on summer afternoons
to levels twice as high as it is in the San Luis Obispo County town of Atascadero, and five or six times higher than Honolulu or Seattle. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, which the study has linked
to long-term lung impairment — and which other investigations have linked to cancer — is found in concentrations
three times higher in Long Beach than in Lompoc.
So what happened to the notion that the air in Southern California is steadily improving? “In general pollution has gotten better,” says Peters, “but you have to remember
that it’s only the things we’re measuring that are getting better. Other things, like gas formulations, are changing
— diesel technology being the big one. So if you’re measuring ozone and you’re measuring NO2, then in some
ways things are improving. If you’re paying attention to particles, in some areas, things may be getting worse.”
Dissatisfied
with the existing air-quality measurements as provided by the EPA, the Children’s Health Study researchers went about
setting up 12 air-quality monitoring stations to measure PM10 and 2.5 (large and fine particulate matter), nitrogen oxides,
ozone and acid vapor. “We established a sampler that took a two-week sample for PM2.5. That began in 1994. So we probably
had as much information on fine particles coming from our study as there was available anywhere else,” says Peters.
“The way you measure particles is to collect them on a filter and weigh them. Big particles, what we call PM10, weigh
more than little particles. And what’s happened with diesel technology is that you don’t have the big particles
— you don’t see the big black stuff coming out as much as you used to — but you have more of the ultrafine
particles [PM2.5]. They don’t weigh very much, so it seems like there’s less to worry about. But it’s not
true: Biologically those ultrafine particles are probably more significant and more dangerous to inhale.”
They
are also responsible for the bulk of air pollution’s public-health costs. Five years ago, in a study called “Multiple
Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air
Basin,” the South Coast Air Quality Management District established that diesel particulate
matter accounts for 70 percent of the state’s cancer risk from airborne pollutants. And while the Environmental Working
Group, a D.C.-based nonprofit, estimates the public-health impact of ozone at $521 million, measured in school absences and
emergency-room visits, a Union of Concerned Scientists study recently set the costs of diesel particulate matter at a staggering
$21.5 billion.
Beyond the hard, cold figures, there remains the stark reality that diminished lung function may be
a precursor for emphysema, chronic bronchitis and possibly even lung cancer later in life. “There’s a connection
that’s not clearly established,” says Peters, “but what we do know is that if you have low lung function
as an adult, on the average your life is going to be shorter. You’re going to be more likely to die of heart disease
or lung disease. So the assumption is that if it’s happening at 18 years old it’s going to do the same thing to
you when you’re an adult.” We are, in essence, dooming children in smoggy areas to a lifetime of health problems,
the genesis of which lies almost exclusively with our dirty cars and trucks.
In
the wake of a 2004 article in The New England Journal of Medicine establishing
the link between reduced lung volume and childhood exposure to air pollution, the Children’s Health Study received nationwide
attention: It provided, finally, an unassailable testament to the lethal consequences of continuing air pollution. It established
methodically documented physical evidence that air pollution inhibits the healthy development of children’s lungs. In
a summary of the studies, “Breathless in Los Angeles: The Exhausting Search for Clean Air” — a title Peters
wrote himself — the authors recommend mitigating measures: Install air-filtration systems in schools, locate parks,
day-care centers and sports fields away from high-traffic thoroughfares, supplement at-risk children’s diets with vitamin
C to fight the oxidizing effects of dirty air. They also acknowledge the drawbacks of almost any secondary solution: Vitamin
C may actually be a pro-oxidant and air conditioning increases energy consumption and therefore emissions from power plants.
Even moving to a cleaner-air community isn't ideal. If everyone moves to Ventura and works in downtown Los Angeles, air poisoned by traffic
congestion will eventually be impossible to escape. “This isn’t like dietary fat, where you can tell an individual
to cut down,” says Gauderman. “It’s an exposure that’s all around us, and if you live in Southern California, there’s no way to
avoid it.” The only real solution, he concludes, is to “keep the pressure up to regulate and reduce pollution
levels generally.” In other words, mandate more fuel-efficient vehicles — something California struggles to do against continuing legal threats from the auto manufacturers’ lobby.
I tell Peters it
seems that there should have been more alarm over the results of the Children’s Health Study. “It does, doesn’t
it?” he says. “I don’t know what has to happen. Maybe we need a Cindy Sheehan of air pollution camping out
in Sacramento.”
Recently, Penny Newman, executive director of
the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, enlisted Peters in her group’s battle to stop the building
of warehouses on 700 acres in Mira Loma, a small rural community where air quality has deteriorated due to a glut of industrial
development. “Dr. Peters actually came to [Riverside County] Board of Supervisor meetings,” says Newman. “He
explained the significance of what they had found in the study, and its direct impact on Mira Loma. He made it so it wasn’t
a theoretical thing anymore.” But she laments that the Children’s Health Study has not had a more sweeping regulatory
impact – it has not, for example, halted the state’s plan to expand the ports without stricter air-quality controls.
“I remember years ago we’d have officials saying, ‘We can’t make public-policy issues without sound
science.’ Now we have sound science. Nobody has picked it apart. Yet we’re continuing with policies that are in
direct conflict with the science.”
Until those policies change and the problem of Southern California
air quality is solved, Peters intends to keep collecting data – he’d like to see the Children’s Health Study
carry on well into the next half-century. “We’ll follow these subjects into their 20s, and even their 30s,”
he says, “to see the long-term effects.” One theory is that men’s lungs will recover in adulthood, since
male lungs grow long after female lungs stop growing, at around age 18. Another is that the damage remains for life. “That’s
something we won’t know for a decade,” says Peters. “But we plan to figure it out.”
The study’s
goals were somewhat stymied when two school districts — one of the dirtiest, Mira Loma, and one of the cleanest, Lompoc
— refused to continue in the study, citing more pressing educational concerns than testing lung function. But new children
have been recruited, and the dollars that stopped coming from CARB in 2004 have been replaced with a seven-year, $17 million
grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Peters is confident there’s much more to learn.
“Who knows when this will ever end?” he says. “There’s always more to know.”
Clear and Present Danger (cont.)
Stench
of Politics Industry money to the “Mod Caucus” fouls the fight
for clean air by JEFFREY ANDERSON
SACRAMENTO — Growing up in Long Beach the daughter of a civil servant, Jenny Oropeza understood the value of jobs to blue-collar Los Angeles. For Oropeza, a former member of the Long Beach City Council and now an Assemblywoman from the 55th District, forming
strong relationships with the business community has always been second nature.
Her life took on new meaning in the
past year, however. One day last August, Oropeza suffered severe abdominal pain. At first she thought nothing of it. When
the pain persisted she went for an MRI, which revealed that she had liver cancer. After a seven-hour surgery, two weeks in the hospital
and several months of chemotherapy, she became anemic, lost her hair and was forced to miss the first three weeks of the 2005
legislative session. Meanwhile, her colleague, Assemblyman Mike Gordon from El Segundo, was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
He died in June, at age 47. Through the close of the legislative session a black sheet was draped over the chair in the Assembly
where he once sat. Oropeza recalled that her chief of staff, who also grew up in an industrial part of Los Angeles, survived ovarian cancer a decade ago. These reminders of mortality came as one of her proposals, AB 1407, which would
have imposed the first-ever fee on off-road diesel fuel users to offset air pollution, was gutted by the Chamber of Commerce,
with an assist from Democratic leadership in the Assembly.
Most legislators know that, according to the California
Air Resources Board, more than 70 percent of the cancer risk faced by Southern
Californians comes solely from diesel exhaust, which is prevalent near
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and along the trucking corridors east of the Alameda Railway.
Asthma rates there are more than three times higher than in the next highest region of the state, which already is the worst
in the nation. But as chronic as the illness caused by air pollution is the dilemma for lawmakers who value commerce and jobs
— and in the age of term limits, steady financial support.
Suddenly Oropeza’s mission as a legislator became
clearer than ever. “I live in downtown Long Beach, a stone’s throw from the 710 freeway, the port and an oil refinery,
so I can see the soot on my furniture,” said Oropeza on a recent Friday in her office in the state Capitol. As she sat
there munching on a bowl of cereal, an unopened and, in her fragile state of recovery, inadvisable can of diet soda was within
arm’s reach. Surrounded by photos of her younger, healthier self — a political climber by most accounts —
she spoke of a moral choice. “I also have a good relationship with Chevron, Valero and other oil companies in my district.
I’m not saying the air quality where I live is a direct cause of my illness. But cancer was a wake-up call. I’ve
never seen a more important nexus between the environment and public health. I know that my duty is to the people I represent,
not the people who write the checks.”
With Californians overwhelmingly in support of safeguards for air, water,
the coast and community health, a surprising number of elected officials from the areas most affected by diesel pollution
do not appear to share Oropeza’s opinion. According to the California League of Conservation Voters, which publishes
a legislative scorecard every year, 25 percent of state legislators, mostly Republicans, vote against environmental measures
every time. In recent years, Assembly Democrats from Southern California, the Central Valley and the Bay Area have joined in that opposition.
A notable
exception is Assemblywoman Fran Pavley of Woodland Hills, a staunch advocate for environmental and clean-air
initiatives. “Look at voting records, then look at the money people are receiving,” says Pavley. “If a person
is receiving money from opponents of clean-air legislation and they are voting in a way that is not in the best interests
of the health of their constituents, then I would say there is cause for concern. I won’t name names, but some of my
colleagues vote against my bills or won’t support them unless they are amended, yet their constituents are more affected
than mine, who live in the suburbs and along the coast.”
From 2003 to 2004, the average Assembly Democrat’s
environmental voting record dropped from 94 percent to 85 percent, according to the League’s scorecard. Assembly Democrats
with an environmental voting record of 50 percent or less quadrupled, from one to four. Democrats in the state Senate also
increased their opposition to environmental measures, lowering their average score from 93 percent to 87 percent. Veteran
lawmakers agree that waning support for clean-air initiatives has mirrored this trend.
At the same time, the Chamber
of Commerce, in concert with the railroad, trucking, automobile, and oil and gas companies — and to a lesser extent
manufacturers and alcohol distributors who strive for the least costly flow of goods — have lavished elected officials
with cash and spent even more on lobbying efforts that have derailed public-health initiatives. From 1998 to 2002, the energy
industry alone spent $16.6 million on statewide candidates in California, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics. For Oropeza,
and her colleagues from Southern California who have already been on the front lines of the clean-air battle for years, they
need look no further than to their fellow passengers on the weekly shuttle flights out of Sacramento to see the face of that
opposition — and its potential recruits.
Volunteers are packed into the lobby of KCRA-TV studios in Sacramento on a recent Thursday
night, waiting to join in a phone-banking effort to raise money for the American Red Cross. It is a week after Hurricane Katrina
has devastated New Orleans.
Working well past the dinner hour, several distinguished
visitors arrive roughly at the same time and make their way to the phones. They are: State Assemblymen Jerome Horton of Inglewood, Joe Baca Jr. of Rialto and Hector De La Torre of
South Gate. Moments later, Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod, of Chino, arrives.
The presence of these Democratic Assembly members
from Southern California
on the eve of such a historic tragedy is heartwarming. It also is oddly coincidental. As it turns out, they share more than
a concern for helping victims of the epic flooding and disaster that has swept through Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Horton and McLeod are
members of what is known as the “Mod Caucus,” a group of moderate, business-minded Democrats who frequently oppose,
refuse to support or help to dilute clean-air proposals. Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg in the Bay Area is their leader. Baca and De La Torre, newcomers to the Assembly, are not official members of the
Mod Caucus. According to political observers, however, they are drawn to the same moderate business views, and therefore are
likely to stand in the way of aggressive clean-air legislation.
One way to glean a Mod Caucus member’s vote
is to see if a bill appears on the Chamber of Commerce’s Web site under “Job-Killers.” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
vetoed all 10 job-killer bills sent to him in 2004, including a measure to cut gasoline use by 15 percent and a measure to
prohibit any growth at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that would lead to increased air pollution. A separate measure
to require railroad companies to install emission-reduction equipment and to impose a fee to mitigate diesel emissions from
trains stalled in the Assembly after being labeled a job-killer.
After about 20 minutes working the phones, Baca and
De La Torre head for the door. De La Torre, a tall, youthful man in shirtsleeves and slacks, was diplomatic though fidgety
in response to questions about air quality in his district, which he calls the “urban core” of Los Angeles. De La Torre, observers say, has not fully developed his ideology as a lawmaker. Yet in the cliquish world of the
state Capitol, he has found friends among the moderate Democrats, and he talks the talk of the Mod Caucus: “It’s
good business to be more efficient in production. We shouldn’t have to choose between clean air and prosperity. That’s
a false choice. We want our workers to be healthy so they can enjoy the products coming into our city. But it’s not
good enough to put vague goals out there.” The League of Conservation Voters has not rated De La Torre. He’s supported
at least one measure to reduce emissions at the port and sponsored his own modest effort aimed at cleaner air. His financial
support is split evenly between business and a combination of labor and the Democratic Party. In 2004, he received $38,650
from the automotive, electric-utilities and waste-management industries, which view clean-air measures as job-killers. He
received $6,400 from pro-environmental groups.
Baca, the son of Congressman Joe Baca, is easier to read. Inching toward
the exit in his workout clothes and clutching a gym bag, the muscle-bound former corrections officer from the Inland Empire was expressionless when asked the same question: What about the air in your district? “I’ve got to sit
down with the air-quality district and the business community and work toward a compromise,” Baca said, his eyes narrowing.
“We have the highest asthma rates among children in my district. But it has to be approached on a bi-partisan basis.”
Baca voted “no” on AB 1101, a measure introduced by Oropeza to reduce diesel emissions at ports, railyards, airports
and trucking centers. The Chamber of Commerce dubbed it a job-killer. Baca acknowledged the tag is extreme but added, “We
can’t just look at the environment. I’m focused on jobs. If we can bring more work to my area, that cuts down
on commuter traffic and pollution.” Baca raised almost two-thirds of his $591,654 in 2004 from the business community,
including more than $30,000 from electric utilities and the automotive industry, and $9,000 from alcohol distributors and
retailers.
A short time later, Horton stepped down from the phone bank. Businesslike in his blue suit and striped tie,
he was no less pragmatic — or impatient — with questions about air quality. A Mod Caucus member with a 56 percent
environmental rating from the League of Conservation Voters, Horton gets more than 75 percent of his funds from businesses
— mostly casinos and alcohol sellers. He has a penchant for not voting — essentially having the effect of a “no”
vote but ostensibly without offending anyone. Horton declined to vote 60 percent of the time in 2004, including on AB 1101,
which died on the Assembly floor, six votes shy of passage. “Because of term limits there’s no time to dedicate
to developing real policy answers, so we follow those who bring us solutions,” Horton said. “There’s a lack
of academic and historical knowledge in the Legislature to provide leadership. We waste too much time cleaning up bills that
should have more thought put into them. Basically we need to be more analytical and more responsive to real problems, instead
of issues to placate special interests. Some people say, ‘If the Sierra Club says so, it must be right.’”
Horton’s young son was with him. When asked if the rates of asthma in children in his district figure into his way of
thinking, he replied, “We all are driven by something that happened in our lives. My mother died of cancer. I hate cigarettes.”
Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod of the Mod Caucus strolled by. “In my district we have bad air quality,
but we have to be friendly to business,” said McLeod, one of four Assembly Democrats with an environmental rating of
50 percent or lower. “We have to have jobs to have a good quality of life, which includes breathing good air.”
McLeod also declined to vote on AB 1101, as did Assemblymen Ron Calderon of Montebello, Ed Chavez of La Puente and Dario Frommer of Glendale, her fellow Mod Caucus members. “How to marry the two together, air quality and business, that’s the rub,”
she said. “The answer is not to impede on business.” When pressed for a more detailed explanation, she replied,
“I drive a hybrid car, OK?” McLeod abstains from voting 43 percent of the time.
Her political contributions
come mostly from the Democratic Party and labor unions, but she received $24,000 from electric utilities and the trucking
industry, and another $30,000 from beer, wine and liquor companies, which rely on trucks for distribution.
At
a time of rapid growth and reassessment of Los Angeles’ infrastructure, scientists and environmental advocates see an intellectually dishonest debate emerging around the issue of air quality.
Lawmakers who are questioned about their commitment to the health of their constituents all too frequently invoke the mantra
of term limits to explain how their ability to engage in meaningful policy work is inhibited. Following the money can help
to explain some politicians’ behavior. Schwarzenegger, for instance, a self-proclaimed “Green Governor,”
is the king of cash when it comes to industries that oppose environmental and air-quality initiatives. In 2004, he accepted
$352,400 from oil and gas companies and car manufacturers who simultaneously spent $395,400 to pass Proposition 64, which
scaled back consumer lawsuits having to do with health and environmental damage. Car dealerships gave $407,700 to Schwarzenegger
while spending $629,150 on the passage of Prop 64. In all, he collected $4.8 million from companies who supported Prop 64
— roughly the same amount spent by those same companies to pass it.
Likewise, Mod Caucus members from around
the state soak up contributions from energy, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture companies, and appear equally influenced
by what industry lobbyists say. Joe Canciamilla, the chair of the caucus, has an environmental voting record of 58 percent,
according to the League of Conservation Voters. A conduit to big business, he is one of the most influential lawmakers in
Sacramento. Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, a Democrat from Hanford rated at 39 percent, voted against three prominent clean-air bills in 2004. Assemblyman Simon
Salinas of Salinas, who is rated at 79 percent, abstained from voting to help defeat a 2004 initiative by state Senator Martha Escutia
that would have authorized the South Coast Air Quality Management District to reduce emissions from trains and heavy-duty
vehicles operating at rail yards. Lou Correa, an assemblyman from Anaheim with a 44 percent environmental-voting record, helped defeat
that measure and two others last year.
Nowhere is the clash between jobs and health more extreme than in Los Angeles.
Emissions from the shipping, rail and trucking industries are more damaging to the public’s health
in Southern California than anywhere else. The California Air Resources Board, or CARB, reports that
95 percent of Californians breathe unhealthy air. According to toxicologist Bart Ostro, of the State Office of Environmental
Health Assessment, the statewide annual health impact of air pollution is 9,600 premature deaths statewide. Most but not all
of those deaths would be avoided if the region met current air standards. Failure to achieve those standards causes 6,500
premature deaths; 4,000 hospital admissions for respiratory disease; 3,000 hospital admissions for heart disease; 350,000
asthma attacks and 2,000 asthma-related emergencies.
In Southern
California, where unhealthy ozone levels exist during one out of every
three days, low-income and minority communities near the ports and the trucking corridors to the east are particularly vulnerable
to multiple pollution sources, according to the American Lung Association of California. Its 2005 study found that from Santa Barbara to San Diego, every county failed one
or more tests for particle pollution or ozone levels. And in a 2004 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found that because of diesel emissions
the rates of premature mortality, chronic bronchitis, heart disease and asthma in the South Coast
air districts accounted for half of the statewide illnesses, at an annual public-health cost of $10 billion.
Against
such data, the industries that drive Southern California’s economy have spared no expense protecting their bottom line. Oil companies and related
industry associations spent more than $50 million lobbying Sacramento from 1995 to 2002, according to the secretary of state. Oil companies
gave an additional $3 million to statewide candidates from 1997 to 2002. In 2004, the oil and gas industries gave $640,532
to statewide candidates, spending more than half on Democrats, who control the Legislature.
ChevronTexaco, which owns
a huge refinery in El Segundo, has spent $1.6 million on state-level politicians and party committees since 2000 — more
than half what it has spent nationwide. While the company spends almost twice the amount on Republican committees as on Democratic
ones, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics it spends equally among Republican and Democratic candidates for
state office. And it has a knack for backing winners. The institute reports that 69 percent of the company’s contributions
go to winning candidates. Top 20 recipients include these Democrats: former Gov. Gray Davis ($186,000); Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante
($55,000); Attorney General Bill Lockyer ($25,500); Treasurer Phil Angelides, who is running for governor ($25,000); state
Senators Mike Machado of Linden ($12,000) and Dean Florez of Shafter ($7,500); and Assemblywoman Betty Karnette of Long Beach
($7,000), who as a state senator in 2004 abstained from voting on four out of five clean-air bills.
In addition, last
year the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad, the California
Trucking Association Political Action Committee, the California Motor Car Dealers Association Political Action Committee,
General Motors, Occidental Oil and Gas Corp. and BP Amoco contributed more than $1.1 million to the campaigns of statewide
candidates, according to the Institute on Money in State Politics. Western States Petroleum Association spent its money lobbying
elected decision makers to the tune of $1.4 million. The Chamber of Commerce also organizes transportation, energy, waste-management
and beer and wine companies into coalitions that lobby together against fuel-economy bills.
Earlier in her career,
Oropeza, a pragmatist with a reputation for being combative, might not have challenged such clout. Even now, as she redefines
her approach to lawmaking, she is not shy about tossing off a term-limits reference to explain why the business of improving
air quality has turned into a political quagmire. Her environmental voting record is 88 percent — just above average
for Democrats. Until last year she was on the fast track to Speaker of the Assembly, a power position she badly wanted but
lost to Assemblyman Fabian Nuñez of Los Angeles. Yet in addition to her bout with cancer, circumstances have
changed profoundly for her. Relieved of the pressures of formal leadership, Oropeza finds herself in a position to lead from
a policy perspective. “I want to make a difference,” she says.
State Senator Alan Lowenthal
stands before a wall-sized map of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, tracing his hands over the sources of the most deadly emissions to be found in California. Arguments from the Mod Caucus about jobs amount to obfuscation, Lowenthal says. “Of course the movement of
goods throughout the region has to be part of our future, but right now it is a problem, and what was once an environmental
problem is a public health crisis. We cannot afford to say we will fix it later. We have to build sustainable communities
or we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”
Lowenthal is a wiry, energetic man, a former psychologist
and community activist who ran for city council in Long Beach 13 years ago and never looked back. Now he is one of the most passionate and respected advocates
for clean air in the Legislature. “When I ran for city council in 1991 I walked the precincts around the port and tried
to talk to people about revitalization. They said, ‘That’s nice, Alan, but what is this black, filmy substance
on our furniture?’ I looked at an air-quality report and learned that 1 million tons of petroleum coke was moving through
the Port of Los Angeles. I sued the Port of Los Angeles and people accused me of trying to gain an economic advantage for the Port of Long
Beach.
I said the economy is not the issue. And as I learned more, I saw the problem was like one of those Russian dolls, where you
remove the head and there’s another doll inside. Diesel particles were just the tip of the iceberg.”
The
sponsor of some of the most aggressive clean-air measures, Lowenthal receives direct contributions from oil and gas companies
but refuses to do their bidding. Instead, he has worked with them and the transportation industries in some instances and
applied not-so-subtle pressure in others. In 2004, after it was labeled a job-killer, his bill to hold the ports to no net
increase in pollution growth was vetoed by Schwarzenegger. However, his trucking bill, AB 2650, which cut the time trucks
can idle at the port, met with approval from the transportation industry; businesses saw that reduced idling time led to smoother
passage of goods and greater profits. Then, having engaged the business community, Lowenthal threatened to call upon the state
to regulate the opening of trucking terminals to further speed the cargo-loading process at the port — that is, unless
the trucking companies could coordinate pier passage themselves. The implications for business competition, labor unions and
Homeland Security were massive, yet the strategy worked. “It’s like the Wild West with these companies, always
looking to undercut each other. You have to show them ways that make good business sense. I was concerned only about reducing
emissions. But what business has trucks lined up for hours waiting to be loaded? You cannot treat the surrounding communities
with such disrespect.”
Faced with pressure from the Chamber of Commerce during this recent session, Lowenthal
took the unusual step of holding back his container-fee bill, SB 760. The bill would funnel shipping container fees into meeting
emissions standards. It passed in the state Senate but was labeled a job-killer. He’ll bring it to the Assembly at a
later time. “Steps toward a consensus,” Lowenthal says with a smile. But what about the pressure of term limits,
doesn’t that make it difficult to take a long view of such complicated problems? “How does that fit into anything?”
he says, this time with a straight face as he gestures wildly all over the map on his wall. “I live here,” he
says. “My children grew up here.”
Howard Posner, a Cal-Trans veteran and consultant to the Assembly Transportation
Committee, which is chaired by Jenny Oropeza, says Oropeza was drawn to clean-air advocacy even before she got cancer, but
that her illness transformed her. He points to two bills she sponsored in early 2004 that failed. AB 2644 would have placed
a limit on bus idling, and would have codified regulations already adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Though it
was not labeled a job-killer, Schwarzenegger vetoed it. AB 2526, which would have reserved a quarter-cent from each 18 cents
collected under an existing diesel-tax program for improving air quality, died in the Appropriations Committee. A third bill,
AB 1407, introduced by Oropeza this year, would have imposed a 5-cents-per-gallon fee on the sale of off-road diesel. Under
pressure from the Chamber of Commerce and the Mod Caucus, the bill was amended to instruct CARB simply to study the impacts
of the fee.
Such failures and compromises tell the story of how bogged down air-quality legislation has become, Posner
says, pointing to numerous other measures that met a similar fate, often at the hands of the Mod Caucus. Yet he expects Oropeza,
who is running for state Senate in 2006, to keep fighting. “It’s important to decide when opposition is based
on real policy concerns, and when it’s just a line of B.S.,” Posner says. “Sometimes bills are too ambitious
and worthy of compromise, and it’s better to get something on the governor’s desk than nothing. Other times, the
politics can get under your skin.”
These days, Oropeza, though still suffering from anemia and fatigue at times,
does her best to stay philosophical. Like many who have faced their mortality, she sees job stress as a life factor to keep
in check. Cancer survivor Oropeza, who represents Long Beach at ground zero of the political fight between commerce and clean air, may find that her best work
still lies ahead of her. She is in a unique position to personalize environmental issues as they relate to public health.
She can dramatize issues as well, like the time she responded to criticism on the Assembly floor that AB 1101 was a job-killer.
“No it’s not,” Oropeza said, her pre-cancer combativeness making a comeback — but with an enlightened
focus. “It’s righteous.”
Clear and Present Danger (cont.)
Solving
Smog Our suggestions for ways out of this mess
Los Angeles air is filthy.
Each day, some 1,650 tons a day of pollution that causes ozone are emitted, as well as 293 tons per day of particulate matter
and 60 tons of sulfur oxides, which form particles downwind. After the federal government canceled the federal one-hour ozone
standard earlier this year — which the area was to have met in 2010 — and replaced it with an eight-hour standard
that must be met in 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District can no longer show exactly what will be needed to
clean up the area’s air.
It will, however, clearly require lawmakers and regulators to make some bold moves.
Key among them will be providing adequate funding for air-pollution control programs and reversing the sprawl that creates
auto dependence. New environmental-analysis tools point clearly in this direction, but government must begin using them now
to justify bold actions. New technology will be needed too, like hydrogen-powered cars, but it will be slow in coming and
is unlikely to clean the air anytime soon.
Here are some bold solutions to the region’s air-pollution health
crisis. They are based on discussions with leaders in air-pollution control and culled from historical documents and various
plans and studies by AQMD, the California Air Resources Board, federal EPA and environmental groups like the Sierra Club.
Many of the pollution-reduction figures for these solutions are rough, particularly those concerning sprawl. Yet they show
what could be accomplished through new approaches. The total emission reductions here may add up to more pollution than is
emitted, showing the untapped potential of creative approaches.
SHAKE US UP Clean House: William Burke, chairman of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, and Barry Wallerstein, AQMD executive officer, promised clean air and environmental justice
when they took over the agency in 1997. Eight years later, the toxicity of the air in Los Angeles is increasing, and progress on ozone has virtually ceased. The district no longer even has a plan
showing how it can meet updated federal health standards. The California Air Resources Board has lost focus too, since the
departure of its chairman, Alan Lloyd, a Gray Davis appointee. The board is moving slowly to adopt needed regulations. The
first thing needed now is for the Legislature to reorganize the AQMD and ARB, expanding their mandate and bringing in new
leadership willing to take the strong steps and advocate for the bold changes really needed to achieve environmental justice
and healthful air. The Legislature reorganized air-quality programs in the late 1980s and the rejuvenation brought a decade
of steady progress, after a period of stagnation earlier in the ’80s. Stagnation has set in once again. So it’s
time for lawmakers to shake things up. New people, new ideas, new forms of regional governance, new legal powers and more
resources are desperately needed.
Benefit to Air: Jump-starting the region’s air cleanup could avoid 41
tons of pollutants a day by speeding adoption of stalled rules.
Bring Back the 1984 Olympics Traffic Controls:
When Los Angeles hosted the 1984 Olympics, city and AQMD officials kept smog down for
athletes by increasing carpools, keeping trucks off the road at rush hour and providing more public transit. AQMD tried to
pursue these strategies on a permanent basis in the late 1980s and early 1990s under new authority that the Legislature granted
in 1987 over so-called “indirect sources” of air pollution, such as shopping centers, office buildings and warehouses
that are magnets for cars and trucks. AQMD, for instance, wanted shopping malls, concert and sports venues, and office-building
owners to provide free shuttle buses and incentives to patrons to carpool. When businesses complained, the Legislature removed
AQMD’s authority to regulate indirect sources. Given the air-pollution health emergency, it’s time for lawmakers
to give that power back. Already, extended port hours initiated earlier this year promise to ease congestion-related pollution
by spreading out truck traffic. With indirect source authority, AQMD could bring further improvements by requiring warehousing
centers to operate at non-peak traffic hours and shopping malls, stadiums, office complexes, and concert halls to do their
part too. The Olympics program cut ozone by 12 percent, according to the federal EPA.
Benefit to Air: Translating
1984’s gains into today’s more congested freeways, would bring conservative savings of 198 tons a day.
MONEY ITEMS Funding the AQMD: The South Coast Air
Quality Management District regulates more businesses than ever, yet its budget and staff levels have been in decline for
years. This year, the agency will operate on a budget of $105 million with a staff of 768, down from $108 million last year
and a staff of 773. The problem is that as emissions decline from factories, the agency’s emissions-fee revenues decline,
undermining its ability to adopt and enforce the ever widening net of regulations and programs needed to finish the job of
cleaning Southern California’s air. One solution is to broaden the agency’s base of
fees through a modest property-tax add-on throughout the region it serves. With some 5 million structures throughout the region,
an assessment amounting to less than a dollar a month for the average property owner would provide plenty of money for the
AQMD general fund. The Legislature would have to act to make it happen. More funding for AQMD likely would eliminate untold
excess emissions. If non-compliance at businesses policed by the AQMD is just one-fifth as bad as at gas stations, which emit
some 10 tons per day of illegal emissions, a substantial amount of pollution would be eliminated once the money began to flow
and more inspectors were hired.
Benefit to Air: It appears that enforcing current laws could spare our skies
and lungs as much as 80 tons a day.
Funding Cleanup of the Freight Industry:
The cost of fully cleaning up the diesel soot and nitrogen-oxide emissions from the
trains, trucks, ships and other heavy vehicles and equipment needed to keep cheap imports flowing is unknown. The Port of Los Angeles estimates that just to keep emissions related to its facilities from growing will cost some $16 billion. Then there
is the Port of Long Beach. The Southern California Association of Governments projects that $26 billion of new highways, rail lines and other
transportation facilities will be needed to accommodate growth at the region’s ports. Next year, the Legislature should
pass a bill by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) to charge a fee on each container shipped through the port. With a $30 fee per container it would
raise almost $400 million a year, adding just pennies to the price of the imported goods. Truckers who haul containers could
clean up their trucks with the money. Exploited by big retailers as independent contractors who make about $8 an hour, they
cannot afford new rigs themselves. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa should vigorously back this bill, which was blocked by shippers
and the governor this year. In addition, SCAG is right in calling for any new transportation facilities for shippers to be
paid off by tolls. L.A. Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and
Juanita Millender-McDonald, who sits on the House Transportation Committee, should galvanize a California effort to win more federal
money for transportation improvements and other measures that can clean up shipping. Half the goods shipped through here go
to the rest of the nation, yet the federal government will pay less than 25 percent of what’s needed to keep the freight
rolling, according to SCAG. Regional leaders should seek to reduce port pollution, rather than simply maintain pollution at
today’s levels. If pollution from the Port of Long Beach — where emissions are unknown since administrators have never bothered to calculate them
— are similar to those from the Port of Los Angeles, there is substantial cleanup potential.
Benefit to
Air: A crackdown to reduce port pollution by 20 percent could eliminate 30 tons a day. A 40 percent crackdown would double
that amount.
Funding Retirement of High-Polluting Old Vehicles: Old cars not built to meet today’s
tight automotive-emissions standards and often not properly maintained could be repaired to eliminate 51 tons per day of smog-forming
emissions by 2010, according to the Air Resources Board. However, most people drive old cars because they cannot afford a
new one. The problem could be solved by having drivers of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks mitigate their added emissions
by paying to fix and even replace old vehicles driven by the poor. Half of the region’s vehicles are sport utilities
and trucks and while today’s models must meet the same emissions standards as smaller cars, they use twice the gasoline.
More oil pumping through refineries and gasoline pumping through nozzles means higher emissions because of the proliferation
of SUVs and their high-and-mighty owners. The Legislature could act to place a pollution surcharge on the registration for
SUVs. A surcharge of $100 for new SUVs, declining as they age, would bring in a substantial amount of money to clean up and
replace the old vehicles, and wouldn’t be onerous for SUV owners. After all, they have taken a $100 increase in their
monthly gasoline bill in stride. What’s another $8-and-change a month?
Benefit to air: This would reduce
pollution by the equivalent of a small Third World nation, or 236 tons a day.
Funding Hydrogen Highways:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hydrogen-highways program represents the best long-term path to the zero-emissions
vehicles Los Angeles needs to clean its air, reduce its contribution to global warming
and dramatically reduce its dependence on fossil fuels as long as the hydrogen is made with renewable energy. However, the
way the program is set up, the hydrogen mostly will be made of heavily subsidized fossil fuels that impose massive health
costs on the region. The Legislature could level the playing field by placing a nickel-a-gallon tax on gasoline. The money
could be used to fund development of solar- and wind-powered hydrogen production facilities and offset tax incentives for
motorists to purchase hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles. If the economics of the program work as planned, the tax would
raise almost $800 million a year, enough to fuel and place about a million hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road before 2020,
cutting smog-forming emissions by some 30 tons a day from projected levels for that year, and cutting petroleum usage by up
to about 7 percent. This would give the program a good start and eventually make hydrogen cars dominant, eliminating an addtional
306 tons of smog-forming emissions.
Benefit to Air: This could cut air pollution from today’s level by
more than 20 percent, eliminating 336 tons a day.
TIGHTENING
RULES, CLOSING LOOPHOLES Cleaner Factories:
Southern California industries, from refineries to factories, still have not installed all of the
pollution-control equipment that they should. AQMD has catalogued pollution controls that Southern California
businesses can install, from refineries to farms, which could cut smog-forming emissions by at least 39 tons a day from today’s
air-pollution levels if necessary rules were adopted and fully enforced. However, the schedule for adopting many of these
rules has lagged. Even some that were first proposed in the late 1990s have only been adopted this year or have yet to be
adopted.
Benefit to Air: By AQMD’s own estimate, 39 tons a day, but expect even more.
Tighten
Emissions Trading: AQMD says it can eliminate three tons a day of smog-forming emissions from major power plants, refineries
and factories by 2010 by tightening its emissions-trading program. However, the district has made tightening the standards
a contingency measure in its cleanup plan. The district should not wait in an area where air pollution constitutes a public-health
emergency. Every ton counts.
Benefit to Air: AQMD estimates it would cut three tons a day. But they have every
reason to be underestimating this one.
Tighter
State and Federal Standards: The Los Angeles
area needs the California Air Resources Board to set tighter standards for diesel vehicles, construction equipment, diesel
fuel, consumer products like aerosol cans and cleaning fluids, and other sources of pollution. Doing so could reduce smog-forming
emissions by 122 tons per day by 2010. The federal EPA could set tight standards for locomotives and work more diligently
to clean up ships and airplanes to achieve additional reductions.
Benefit to Air: At least 122 tons a day would
be cut, and more if EPA acts.
Require Advanced Technology:
AQMD could revise its rules to require that new electricity-production
facilities run on solar energy or wind power where feasible. The state already is requiring utilities to purchase renewable
power on behalf of their customers, and wind power is now often less expensive than power from burning natural gas. Meanwhile,
in the summer, natural-gas plants run hard here in the region. In addition, the Legislature could require green buildings
that use recycled materials, energy-efficient heat pumps powered by rooftop solar panels for heating and cooling, and other
features to reduce emissions from factories making construction materials and power plants making electricity. There are many
advanced technologies that could be employed to reduce smog-forming emissions by converting the region to renewable energy.
Benefit
to Air: Figure 62 tons could be spared through innovative planning.
REDUCING AUTO USE & SPRAWL Eliminate Automotive Subsidies: The Federal
Highway Administration estimates the social costs of driving — pollution, noise, crashes and congestion — at 18
cents a mile. Others estimate such costs may be twice as high. The state Legislature, counties and cities should move to eliminate
the free ride for motorists in a nonregressive manner. Options include fees levied for vehicle miles traveled, with reduced
fees for poor people or those who are responsible and choose hybrids and other extremely low-emission vehicles, collected
through the annual auto-registration process. Free parking should be eliminated in the suburbs and in office parks. Fees should
be imposed for driving into downtown areas at rush hour, as is now the case in London
and other cities. The money should be used to fund public transit and redevelopment with low-income housing along transit
lines.
Benefit to Air: Depending on how imaginative we want to be, this could spur millions to sell their cars
and avoid emitting 49 tons a day of pollution per million cars taken off the road, based on today’s emissions levels.
Create a Regional Planning and Management Agency with Real Power: Greater Los Angeles has more people
than 47 states, yet in many respects it’s governed like a series of small towns. Air-quality leaders should push the
Legislature to create a regional planning and management agency similar to the Greater Vancouver Regional District that can
enforce an integrated approach to environmental management.
Benefit to Air: Expect a huge reduction of as much
as 98 tons a day once this agency wrests power from small-time thinkers serving as county supervisors and city council members
and eliminates the equivalent of 2 million cars a day from the roads.
Rezone for Density: As painful as it may seem to historical
preservationists, local governments along transit lines and in key downtown areas identified in regional plans should modify
zoning laws to allow single-family home owners to build multi-unit housing structures on their properties. As long as population
growth continues, sprawl will continue unless alternative locations are opened to housing development. Vancouver and Victoria
in British Columbia have done this and while they have lost many a Victorian
house, they have gained cleaner air and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with affordable housing, and they are much closer
to developing a sustainable economy that does not require as much petroleum.
Benefit to Air: It might not be
the prettiest cure, but it could reap reductions of 98 tons a day as the housing market tightens.
Create More Agricultural Preserves and Green Zones: The state Legislature, county boards of supervisors and major cities should designate farm
preserves and champion bond measures to purchase and preserve as green zones the land surrounding the metropolitan area to
eliminate places for sprawling development.
Benefit to Air: Minimal at first, unless additional steps are taken
to keep people from driving to these sanctuaries of urban beauty.
Reform Property Taxes and Development Fees: A split-rate
property tax that raises the tax on land and lowers the tax on structures could encourage density. Right now, property tax
is levied mainly on the value of structures, while it is the underlying value of the land that increases real-estate prices.
Lowering the tax on the improvements would encourage construction of more units per acre. This would result in a lower property-tax
rate per unit and lower rents. Increasing the tax on land would increase taxes for those who use more land per housing unit.
Also, developers should pay fees for the cost of the air pollution their projects generate, based on factors including location,
density and mix of uses. Smart high-density developers would pay lower fees while traditional housing-tract developers would
pay more.
Benefit to Air: Smart development could eliminate the need for 5 million new cars as Southern
California gains some 6 million new people, preventing 245 tons of pollution in the future, based on auto emissions
at today’s levels. Autos will become cleaner, so this is no doubt an overestimate.
De-pave L.A.:
The region should use the money raised through such new fees targeting developers and motorists to de-pave Greater Los
Angeles. That’s right, rip up pavement now devoted to the auto to create new spaces and accommodations for pedestrians,
bicyclists and public-transit ways. Such an approach should be gradual, but ultimately will make living in dense areas more
desirable, which will further diminish sprawl, auto-dependence and pollution.
Benefit to Air: Coupled with renewable
hydrogen-fueled cars for occasional use, this could cut air pollution from today’s levels by almost a third, or 481
tons a day, once people give up trying to find a parking spot. Additional emissions from making and selling gasoline would
be eliminated too.
NEW
POLICY-ANALYSIS TOOLS Ecological Footprint and Gross Progress Indicator: Little of what’s recommended
here will happen unless local politicians see the light, and that will require new analytical tools for the development of
environmental, land-use and transportation policy. Whether a new regional planning agency with teeth is created or not, existing
cities and agencies that deal with land use, transportation and other key decisions that affect air quality should make use
of new analysis tools, developed by Redefining Progress, such as the gross progress indicator and ecological footprint index.
Traditional cost-benefit and environmental-impact analysis have fallen short, part of the reason why air quality remains poor
today. The GPI will redress their inadequacies by subtracting from the gross economic product
of a region the cost of air pollution-related illness, loss of time and productivity because of traffic congestion, loss of
farmland, global warming, consumption of nonrenewable resources and other impacts. It provides a more accurate yardstick of
economic well-being. Likewise, the Ecological Footprint index could show policymakers how their decisions either move the
region toward or away from long-term sustainability.
Benefit to Air: Making politicians aware of planning tools
could provide the foundation for carrying out these anti-sprawl measures and their tremendous pollution savings.
Improving Public Participation: Facilitating broader and more effective public involvement in environmental management cannot be
underestimated. With the help of the government of Canada, EnVision Tools Sustainability Inc. in Vancouver
has created an innovative computer-based public-engagement process for regional planning that can determine the preferences
of up to 100,000 people in a calendar year. People sit at computers in a “decision center” and make choices from
a menu about what type of metropolitan area they would like to see in the future. The complicated computer model provides
feedback on the likely consequences of their choices, including how they will affect such things as future air pollution,
traffic congestion, taxes, proximity of services and energy use. On the basis of such feedback, many people in cities where
it has been used, including Vancouver, come to prefer urban development to suburban
development. The model — based on Sim City
— is known as MetroQUEST, and it peers 40 years into an area’s future.
Benefit to Air: Building
a city that actually works and is responsive to people could cut pollution to acceptable levels.
Clear and Present Danger (cont.)
History
of Smog
1943 First recognized episodes of smog occur in Los Angeles, though it takes a few years for scientists to figure out that cars are the culprit. For now, a chemical plant is
suspected as the cause of the brown hue in the San Fernando Valley skies. In October, county supervisors appoint a Smoke and Fumes
Commission to study the dense smoke.
1947 California Governor Earl Warren signs a law setting up an Air Pollution
Control District in L.A. County.
1948 Caltech
chemistry professor Arie Haagen-Smit discovers the source of ozone, that bleaching- solution odor, and the nature and
causes of photochemical smog.
1952 Workers at L.A. County
Air Pollution Control District expose their eyes to smog, while others hold stopwatches, to see how long it takes for tears
to stream down their faces.
1954 APCD
executive officer S. Smith Griswold develops bronchitis after voluntarily breathing in extremely high levels of ozone in a
Plexiglas chamber.
1956 Survey of doctors by the L.A. County Medical Association finds that 94.7 percent recognize the “smog
complex” — irritated eyes and respiratory tract, chest pains, cough, nausea and headache.
1974 The nation’s last recorded Stage Three smog alert occurs in Upland. Ozone levels hit .51 parts per million. Gov. Ronald Reagan urges residents to “limit
all but absolutely necessary auto travel” and recommends that people drive slower to reduce emissions.
1984 The
California Smog Check program goes into effect to identify vehicles in need of maintenance and to assure the effectiveness
of their emissions-control systems.
1987 Lung
autopsies on more than 1,100 young people who died in accidents or were victims of homicide find that 27 percent had severely
damaged lungs.
AQMD establishes a landmark rideshare program requiring
companies employing at least 100 people to offer incentives to workers to carpool or use public transit. Employers complain
that it shouldn’t be their job to change workers’ driving behavior, and the project goes away in a few years.
1989 Some
2,500 restaurants using char-broilers must outfit exhaust heads with devices to collect reactive organic gases and particles.
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Clean
Air, the AQMD submits the first plan that shows L.A.’s air can be cleaned up. It calls for wide use of electric
vehicles, public transit, carpooling, renewable energy and development of non-polluting consumer goods and factories. The
agency goes on to adopt the standards in the years ahead under the direction of its executive officer James Lents. Air quality
improves.
1990 President George Bush signs into law the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990, which echo the state’s Clean Air Act, requiring new programs aimed at curbing ozone, acid rain
and toxic air pollutants and establishing a uniform national-permit system.
1993 Bowing
to pressure to do its part to revive the sluggish economy, the AQMD approves a program that allows major polluters to trade
emission credits among themselves. The program, dubbed RECLAIM, proves ineffective and feeds the agency’s soft-on-the-bad-guys
reputation that continues to this day.
Some 58 bills are introduced in Sacramento that would exert control
over the AQMD and state Air Resources Board and make them more business-friendly.
1996 An
AQMD study finds that diesel particulate matter accounts for 70 percent of the state’s cancer risk from airborne particles.
Nine AQMD science advisers quit in protest of the agency’s
coddling of big business.
AQMD executive director James Lents is fired amid a growing
business backlash to air-quality regulations.
Big Seven automakers commit to making zero-emissions vehicles,
and General Motors rolls out the EV-1.
2000 No Stage One smog alerts
this year, compared to 42 days in 1990, when people with respiratory problems were urged to stay indoors.
2001 USC scientists studying
the health of 1,759 children over an eight-year period find that teenagers who live in smoggy conditions are nearly five times
as likely to have clinically low lung function.
2003 Rates of childhood
asthma are as high as 14 percent in the smoggiest areas. Hardest hit are communities of color, with up to one in four African
American and Latino children developing asthma. The national average is 10 percent.
Some 34,000 trucks and 16 ships arrive daily at the ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach, producing more than a third of the region’s air pollution. Traffic is expected to quadruple in 20 years.
Automakers go to court and effectively eliminate the
state’s zero-emissions vehicle standards.
2005 Statewide,
9,600 people die every year from air-pollution-caused ailments. Each year, 3,200 die in car crashes, and 2,000 are victims
of homicide.
(Source:
AQMD and news reports)
_______________________________________________ Los
Angeles Times - California IN BRIEF LOS ANGELES COUNTY / LOS ANGELES
Lawsuits Target LAX
Environmental Studies
July 15, 2005
From Times Staff and Wire Reports
Los Angeles County and the cities of Inglewood and Culver City have sued the federal Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration, claiming that environmental
studies completed for the city's modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport are deficient. The suit,
filed in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, argues that the $11-billion proposal understates
the pollution that would result from increased air operations at LAX.
### _______________________________________________
_______________________________________
Los Angeles City Beat 04-14-05
Effusive
City Council candidate for the 11th District says the Westside’s representative needs a citywide vision ~ By BOBBI MURRAY ~
_____________________________________
**********************************************************
**Los Angeles Times October 11th,
2004
Rivals Reject
Hahn's LAX Plan
Four top candidates seeking to unseat the mayor say his $9-billion proposal won't make the airport safer or fix
its shortcomings.
By Jessica Garrison and Jennifer Oldham, Times Staff Writers
Mayor James K. Hahn's controversial plan to modernize Los Angeles International Airport has picked up more opposition: The
four top candidates running against him now say it's a bad idea. More than 10 years and $130 million in the planning,
the $9-billion proposal is headed to the City Council later this month, after winning endorsements last week from two of its
committees.
But state Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sun Valley), former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, Councilman Bernard
C. Parks and Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa — each of whom hopes to defeat Hahn in the March election — say the
plan fails to make the airport more secure or fix its shortcomings. The three candidates running to replace retiring
Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who is the chief architect of an eleventh-hour compromise to rescue the plan, also oppose
it. "This plan doesn't do enough to address the security concerns of the state's No. 1 terrorist target," Hertzberg
said in a statement. "Nor does it take the necessary regional approach to air transportation. "We don't need to
start from scratch, but we need to do better than this." The candidates' opposition to Hahn's LAX plan is not without
precedent. In the 2001 mayoral campaign, all six top candidates opposed Mayor Richard Riordan's $12-billion LAX
expansion plan. The 2001 candidates even went so far as to sign a pledge promising to limit the airport to 78 million passengers
each year. Hahn's plan to remodel the world's fifth-busiest airport has drawn criticism almost from the start.
Among its most controversial facets are a central check-in center at Manchester Square near the San Diego Freeway and the
demolition of Terminals 1, 2 and 3 on the north side of the airport. Those proposals hit waves of turbulence, particularly
the check-in center, which some security experts believe could make passengers more vulnerable to terrorist attack by concentrating
them in one place. Under a compromise worked out between Hahn and Miscikowski, whose district includes the airport
area, officials decided to put those projects in a second phase and require further review. The first phase, which
could begin as soon as the council and the Federal Aviation Administration sign off on it, calls for spending about $3 billion
to build a transit hub, a rental car center and a people mover, and to relocate the southernmost runway to make the airport
safer for takeoffs and landings. Although the check-in center has become the target of ridicule and intense opposition,
the city attorney's office has said eliminating it from the plan could require environmental reviews that may take as long
as 2 1/2 years. The mayor has continued to defend his plan, saying Saturday that he was delighted with its progress
through the council. Impersonating Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's distinctive Austrian accent and brandishing one of his favorite
words, Hahn called it "fantastic." But his main opponents disagreed. Villaraigosa called it "an ill-conceived
plan whose full cost is still unknown" and said he intends to vote against it. He called the attempt to defer the
"more odious" aspects of the plan disingenuous to the public and said that the overall proposal fails to meet the needs not
only of the region, but also of the residents of the communities surrounding the airport. Alarcon also heaped disdain
on the two-phase approach. "I would say it is far-fetched, and I think the mayor is thinking more about producing
something toward the end of his first four years in office, as opposed to doing what is right for Los Angeles."
Parks has not only excoriated the plan, but also proposed an alternative one. He said his plan would make the airport safer
and more secure while costing far less. The Parks plan calls for extending the Green Line rail system to the airport,
consolidating rental car facilities, revamping the southern runways and remodeling the Tom Bradley International Terminal.
He is adamantly opposed to a check-in facility at Manchester Square. Parks also said he plans to lobby Los Angeles
County supervisors to oppose the mayor's plan. If the county's Airport Land Use Commission or any county government
entity appeals a council vote approving the plan, county officials contend, the 15-member council would need 12 votes to override
the appeal. The city's lawyers dispute that, which suggests that the whole matter could wind up in court.
It's possible the council could muster a 12-vote supermajority. So far, only Councilmen Parks, Villaraigosa and Jack Weiss
have expressed opposition. Seven other council members are solidly in favor. The remaining five — Eric Garcetti,
Wendy Greuel, Jan Perry, Martin Ludlow and Dennis Zine — are undecided. But some appear to be leaning toward approval.
"We're getting closer," Zine said. "Politics need to be pushed aside. This is not a small issue. "We
haven't turned one shovelful of dirt, but we've cut down thousands of trees for paper for rooms full of documents on this
plan."
**********************************************************
**Los Angeles Times October 6th, 2004
LOS
ANGELES
Council
Candidates Oppose LAX Plan
Contenders to succeed termed-out Cindy Miscikowski speak out against the airport
modernization proposal she has championed.
By Patrick
McGreevy, Times Staff Writer
All three candidates running in a
City Council district that includes Los Angeles International Airport said Tuesday that they oppose the airport modernization
plan backed by outgoing incumbent Cindy Miscikowski and will fight to have it scrapped.
The candidates — Flora Gil
Krisiloff, Angela Reddock and Bill Rosendahl — are competing in the March election for the council seat Miscikowski
must give up because of term limits.
Their opposition to the LAX plan will be popular in the district, where many
voters already find the airport a nuisance, and it could complicate the pending City Council debate over whether to approve
the $9-billion modernization plan. "We still have concerns about traffic and the impact on our individual neighborhoods,"
said Reddock, an attorney who lives in Westchester. It remains to be seen whether the three candidates, who called
on the council to reject the compromise plan agreed to by Miscikowski and Mayor James K. Hahn, will be able to influence the
outcome. The plan is scheduled for hearings this afternoon at City Hall and a final vote by the City Council on
Dec. 14, well before the winner of the 11th District race takes office in July. However, Rosendahl, a college teacher
who has been endorsed by seven of the 15 council members, believes some of his supporters on the City Council share his concerns,
and he intends to testify against the plan at upcoming council hearings. "The Hahn-Miscikowski plan must
be rejected," Rosendahl said. "It is a flawed proposal that fails to protect the community against expansion, noise, pollution,
traffic and the threat of terrorist attack." Miscikowski had some of the same concerns about the plan, known as Alternate
D, and proposed a compromise that puts the least controversial elements — including the relocation of runways for safety
purposes and an elevated tram — in a first phase that would move ahead quickly. Miscikowski's plan, which she
calls the "consensus plan," would create a second phase that would include tearing down three existing terminals and building
a central check-in facility at Manchester Square near the San Diego Freeway. That phase, under Miscikowski's plan, would not
break ground before further analysis is conducted. All three candidates oppose building a single check-in center
at Manchester Square because they believe it is expensive, will not substantially improve security and will affect nearby
neighborhoods. Krisiloff, founder of the Brentwood Community Council, said she appreciates what Miscikowski has
attempted to do, but said the Manchester Square project and other controversial elements must be permanently eliminated. She
said Miscikowski's plan merely slows down implementation of a check-in center at Manchester Square. "Manchester Square should
never be built," Krisiloff said. Reddock agreed that funneling all passengers through a new central check-in building
at Manchester Square might not enhance security. "It just makes it a target for terrorists," Reddock said. Miscikowski
refused to comment Tuesday on the criticism.
**********************************************************
**Los Angeles Times – October 7th,2004
LOS ANGELES
City
Panel Backs LAX Plan
Planning committee's endorsement of the $9-billion airport overhaul could set
the stage for a full council vote by year's end.
By Jessica
Garrison, Times Staff Writer
In the first City Council action
on the $9-billion modernization plan for Los Angeles International Airport, the planning committee voted 2 to 1 Wednesday
to endorse the proposal and send it on for further review. The council's commerce committee will hold more hearings
today on the plan, setting the stage for a full council vote before the end of the year on the airport overhaul, which has
involved years of planning and $130 million to come up with a blueprint.
If 10 members of the 15-member council approve the plan, it will go on to the Federal Aviation Administration
for a final review, and construction could begin next year at the world's fifth-busiest airport. "It gets the good
things started now," said Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, who earlier this summer worked out an 11th-hour compromise with
Mayor James K. Hahn that postpones the most controversial aspects of his renovation proposal. So-called "green light
projects" such as a consolidated rental-car facility, a transit hub and an elevated tram would be built first at an estimated
cost of about $3 billion. The postponed elements include a central check-in center at Manchester Square near the
San Diego Freeway and demolition of Terminals 1, 2, and 3 on the north side of the airport. Those "yellow light
projects" would require further review before approval could be given. The central check-in facility has been highly
controversial, with some security experts suggesting it would make passengers more vulnerable to a terrorist attack by concentrating
them in one place. It was criticized once again during the two-hour Planning and Land Use Management Committee hearing.
Edward Saenz, a representative of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), told the council that the check-in facility
represented "the world's first billion-dollar curb" and should be eliminated. Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Ed Reyes
voted to support the modernization plan, with Reyes saying it "gets off the ground" with needed improvements. But
Councilman Jack Weiss, who has repeatedly questioned security measures at the airport, voted against the plan. Weiss
suggested it was dishonest and irresponsible to include the yellow light projects because many officials, he said, have no
intention of ever building them. "I think it would be better to be honest with the people of the city," said Weiss,
who wants to scratch the check-in center from the plan. If the council decided to eliminate the yellow light projects, officially
doing so would force the airport to conduct more environmental studies, which could take up to 2 1/2 years, said Assistant
City Atty. Claudia Culling. The entire plan, including the limited improvements and the more controversial check-in
center, were considered as a single package in the environmental reports. "To do nothing would mean we stagnate, we would
be paralyzed, there would be no improvements," Reyes said. Miscikowski agreed, saying Weiss' proposal would scuttle
"the whole thing for now." Weiss disagreed. "Just because someone has seen fit to crazy glue bad public
policy proposals onto good public policy proposals" doesn't mean "that the council should go along with it," he said. Cardenas,
who chairs the commerce committee, said he planned to ask more questions today about the plan's financing.
**********************************************************
**TheSantaMonicaSun
June 2004 Volume 11 Number 4
I LIVE ONE-HALF MILE EAST
OF SANTA MONICA AIRPORT
Amid growing concerns about the
long-term implications of pollution from Santa Monica Airport, we bring you a first hand account of what life is really like
for residents, as told by Joan Winters, a member of “Concerned Residents Against Airport Pollution”.
I live one-half mile east
of Santa Monica Airport and have lived there since I was a child. My family bought our house
in 1958, and living near the airport was never really an issue. The airport was a rather laid-back place where small, recreational
planes puttered around. The topic of the airport being a problem never really came up with us until the mid 1980’s when
jets started using the airport. Of course, until then, the NO JETS sign was quite visible at the airport’s east end
facing Bundy Drive.
Over
the years the number of jets using the airport has been increasing at a tremendous
rate. There are many longtime residents living in our area who bought their
homes well over 20 years ago, and like me, never moved because they liked the area. We
didn’t move near a jetport and we wouldn’t have thought ever that Santa Monica Airport
would become one.
Since I live on the WLA
side, there is no curfew of nighttime plane arrivals. This week I counted three jets that roared in well after midnight. In the mornings, that same roar often is my wakeup call. I am thoroughly disgusted with what
has happened at the airport, because for one thing, I remember it well before the jets. Now, most days jets sit idling one
after another, spewing fumes our way. I like to be outside and to have my windows and doors open, and this is becoming harder
to do as the emissions waft into my house. When I am gardening in the front yard, I have to pick my time so as to hopefully
avoid the afternoon assault of emissions blowing my way, brought by the ocean breezes. Most of the time I am not lucky and
the thick stagnant smell of jet fuel accompanies me, along with the very irritating shrill sound of an idling jet, as I am
gardening. It is a thoroughly disgusting smell and one would have to be an idiot to believe that inhaling jet emissions is
not harmful, especially if one is exposed to them on a long-term basis. I have experienced sore throats, nausea, burning eyes
and headaches when I am forced to smell these obnoxious fumes.
Another very disturbing
thing is that the City of Santa Monica apparently does not recognize the jet-emissions problem. I have to attend the Airport
Commission meetings because I can’t just let this problem go untold. I don’t like going to these meetings, I feel
uncomfortable about public speaking, but I do so because I don’t want to be one of those people who sits back and acknowledges
there’s a problem, but doesn’t make any kind of an effort to call it to people’s attention. I flyer the
neighborhood, I talk to neighbors about the airport. I write letters to newspapers—I am becoming an activist. And as
the jets continue to get larger and larger, I get angrier and angrier.
XXX
**********************************************************
**Santa Monica Mirror - May 19-25,
2004
Letter to the Editor:
Airport air pollution
To the Santa Monica City Council: After more than seven
years of trying to drive home the importance of addressing the extreme negative impacts that idling jets at Santa Monica Airport are
having on the surrounding communities’ air quality, we have gotten nothing except even more air pollution from a huge
growth in jet operations at the airport. It is inexcusable and insulting for the City of Santa Monica
to continue to avoid this issue that demands immediate attention! On Monday,
May 24th, 2004, at 7:30 p.m., at Santa Monica City Council Chambers,
an Environmental Workshop will be held as part of the Santa Monica Airport Commission Meeting.
It will no doubt open with time-consuming reports and PowerPoint presentations that do not deal specifically with Santa
Monica Airport’s unique situation. I hope
and urge that all Santa Monica City Council members will attend. A City known for its “Greenness” can surely do
better than NOTHING to address this huge environmental injustice. In the early 1990’s, Santa
Monica Airport Staff requested that the FAA allow for a different method of take-off that would reduce noise
over Santa Monica. This led to take-off delays and greatly increased idling times, resulting in enormous increases in jet
emissions into surrounding neighborhoods. More and more, residents living around the airport are becoming
increasingly aware of the odor and physical side-effects from idling jet emissions. Some side-effects include:
1. Headaches 2. Sore throat 3. Breathing difficulties, including asthmatic reactions
4. Light-headedness and other hard-to-describe physical feelings 5. Irritated, burning, and watery eyes
6. Nausea – queasiness of stomach Residents’ concerns and questions: ·
Will ingesting these pollutants from idling jets at SMO eventually cause cancer and bronchial maladies in young children,
the elderly, the infirmed, and long-term residents? · Why isn’t the City of Santa
Monica addressing residents’ health concerns by doing whatever it can to have this air pollution
problem corrected? · If it is all in the hands of the FAA, then WHY isn’t Santa
Monica alerting them of the problem and demanding that corrections be made? For a city to stand by
and do nothing is reprehensible. We are requesting of you: 1. To acknowledge that there is
a severe pollution problem coming from SMO. 2. To take immediate steps to correct this environmental injustice.
Thank you very much, Martin Rubin Founder/Director of Concerned
Residents Against Airport Pollution
**********************************************************
**LAX
Communities Exposed to Health Risks By KEVIN HERRERA, Staff Writer
Subject: Wave article on Health Risks 5-5-2004
Los Angeles Wave 4201 Wilshire, Ste 600 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (323)556-5720 fax: (323)556-5704 Wed.,
May 5, 2004 Edition... wavenewspapers.com
LAX Communities Exposed to Health Risks By KEVIN HERRERA, Staff Writer Communities in South Los Angeles, Lennox and Inglewood are disproportionately exposed
to toxic chemicals emanating from airliners flying into LAX, causing severe health risks, including the development of
cancer, according to the Sierra Club, LAX Expansion No! (LAXEN) and other community groups that are mobilizing to fight
expansion of the region's busiest airport. Communities with large populations of minorities are more severely affected than
others, environmentalist said, because more planes are allowed to fly over these communities while affluent neighborhoods
have the financial resources to block changes to flight paths that would harm their quality of life. If Mayor James
K. Hahn's plan to modernize LAX is approved, area residents said auto traffic will worsen while more flights will be allowed
to land, contributing pollution to the area. A lack of oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District is only adding to the problem, environmentalist said. "Officials could focus on the pollution,
but no one wants to open their mouth and call for an investigation," said Mike Stevens, president of LAXEN.
"Cars and homes are turning brown in Inglewood because of the jet fuel, but [air quality officials] totally ignored it." LAXEN is calling for a regional
airport solution and increased oversight to manage air pollution. The mayor's plan, Alternative D, would limit airport
expansion and improve on-airport traffic as well as reduce airport-related traffic, potentially limiting air pollution, according
to the finalized environmental impact report for the LAX Master Plan. The alternative would also rely on a regional approach,
incorporating more local airports to help handle demand, therefore limiting the number of flights operating out of LAX. "Alternative
D could result in a small beneficial effect on cumulative risks associated with cumulative cancer risks ... [and] incremental
cancer risks and non-cancer chronic health hazards under Alternative D would be reduced when compared with to [all other alternatives,]"
read the EIR. Monitoring emissions from commercial and non-commercial flights has been difficult at LAX because
of a lack of equipment to differentiate between emissions from airliners and emission from other sources, including autos,
ground service equipment and fueling stations, air quality officials said. Problems with jurisdiction have also complicated
the effort, with local officials, the federal government and the United Nations all trying to find cohesion. The
revenue that large airports like LAX provide to surrounding cities may also keep local governments from investigating the
matter more aggressively, activists said. "The [South Coast Air Quality Management District] has long recognized aircraft
as an under-regulated source and we would like the federal government to move more quickly in setting up emissions standards,"
said Sam Atwood, spokesman for the AQMD, which is in charge of monitoring air quality in the region but has no jurisdiction
over airliners. The EPA said they are working on developing airline engine efficiency as a means to curb harmful
emissions, but they admit the process is in its early stages and would no way match the efficiency we find in automobile engines.
The EPA said they are collaborating with the AQMD and the Federal Aviation Administration on developing new monitoring strategies,
but a strong system, like the one used to monitor cars, is a long way off. "We set the new standards that engine manufacturers
have to meet, but we don't have programs after that to monitor to see what they are actually emitting," said Dave Jesson,
air pollution protection specialist in the air division of the EPA. "We are very interested in this, of course, because LAX
is clearly a source a major amount of emissions in the western part of Los
Angeles." The AQMD has control of only about 20 percent
of smog forming emission in the Los Angeles basin, said Atwood, while the remaining 80 percent is monitored by the state of the EPA. A ruling by
the U.S. Supreme Court last week weakened their ability to control emissions by ruling against their authority to require
private fleets of 15 or more vehicles to buy natural gas-burning engines or other low-emissions autos. "This had a tremendous
effect at lowering emissions but that tool looks to be lost now," said Atwood. Jesson
said fuel efficiency and safety drive airline engine development, not the environment, meaning any changes to engines that
would curb emissions must not interfere with safety and fuel consumption. Environmental studies conducted by the AQMD and
Los Angeles
World Airports, the agency in charge of operations
at LAX, showed "there was no discernible pattern of fallout material under LAX's flight path which would indicate a predominate
influence from aircraft." However, because air pollution in urban areas is generated by many sources that are petroleum based,
it is difficult to isolate and attribute the full impact of aircraft on local communities, the EIR stated. "What does that
mean," asked Stevens of LAXEN. "It means officials are not trying hard enough."
**********************************************************
**O'Hare expansion foes demand closer look at air pollution
By Tona Kunz Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, May 06, 2004
AND
a reply by Jack Saporito
Click link just below.
O'Hare and Air Pollution
******************************************************
** PROTESTERS NOW BATTLE AIR POLLUTION COVENTRY
AIRPORT
April 30, 2004 - The Courier (United Kingdom) © 2003 Johnston Press New
Media.
Parents
against the development of Coventry airport will don gas masks in protest over the potential damage airport pollution may
have on their children. The protest, organised by Campaign Against the Expansion of Coventry Airport will take place at 11am on May 3 at the airport. Protesters will meet at the Oak pub. CAECA member, Vicki Rahill,
said it was important to protect children from pollution. She said: "There has been a lot in the news about the airport but
not much about the air pollution. As a mother of two young children I am worried about the health risks. "Children are
at a much greater risk from air pollution than anyone else." According to CAECA children's' exposure to air pollution is likely to be much greater than
adults because of their high metabolic rates. Children need more oxygen and breathe more air. In addition children often play outside on
warm, sunny afternoons, which is when ozone levels peak. Children also breathe air closer to the ground, where particles settle, and can be so much
more active that they breath air pollutants deeper into their lungs than adults.
30 April 2004
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter Editor Bill Mulcahy’s note about this: "We can expect the usual
FAA corruption, lies and pro-aviation distortions using the cover of academia. Why isn't the EPA funding this study instead
of the FAA?"
******************************************************
******************************************************
Published: Realty Times October
16, 2003
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
**September 2003 AIRPORT BUSINESS p. 5
WEIGHT-BASED
BECOMES A HEAVY ISSUE
FAA is attempting to better define and regulate weight-based restrictions for airport pavement and has been seeking
comment via a notice of proposed rule-making. NATA and others support FAAs initiative
provided the agency isn't too strict when allowing restrictions due to infrastructure limits; airport groups have been quieter
on the issue, with members both supporting and opposing FAA's action. Santa Monica
Airport (CA) opposes FAAs move, after recently imposing weight-based landing fees in a move to discourage larger business
aircraft use. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey opposes FAA saction
because it wants to restrict larger aircraft access at its business reliever, Teterboro. TEB
currently prohibits Boeing Business jets, and the authority is against aircraft weighing more than 100,000 pounds using the
airport.
******************************************************
**An
E-LETTER**
A caution from New
Jersey to residents around the Santa Monica Airport. from: Carol J.
Skiba
WHAT IT IS LIKE TO HAVE LARGE AIRCRAFT LAND AT A "RELIEVER" AIRPORT
My name is Carol and I live in New Jersey. The purpose of my story is to alert you, make you wiser, and inform you of what life
has become next to an airport which is now being eyed as the intended prospect to become the fourth major metropolitan airport
in the New York City area -- where we already have three major airports (one of which being only a mere 10 miles away).
My home is within close proximity to Teterboro
Airport, owned and operated by the Port Authority of NY & NJ (making
this an extremely difficult situation in which to reach any minimal compromise with respect to the quality life for the human
beings surrounding this airport. This is a "commission" set up by the Governors
of New York and New Jersey and, somehow, even though we live in America, is one that refuses to answer to any authorities
at local, state or federal levels, always making one excuse or another for non-compliance with requests from the public who
are suffering diminished quality of life as a result of this Airport's growth). This airport is in Bergen County, New Jersey; Bergen
County being one of the most densely-populate, affluent counties in the
state.
I have lived in my home for 47 years, almost all of my life. When
I was 11 years old, I can still vividly remember what it was like to get together with my friends on a Sunday afternoon and
sneak over to the airport on our bicycles. We would go anyway with the knowledge
that our Moms would be greatly distressed to learn that we had crossed what was then a 4-lane, undivided highway and road
over to the airport but, this was the best kind of adventure for children to experience.
Teterboro Airport
at this time was just a small airport that hosted prop planes, was surrounded by wetlands, and unknown to most of the country.
Well, we would ride like h--- across the highway to the control tower, park our bicycles outside, open the
door and run up the stairs to the tower. The controllers were always wonderful
with the unexpected interruption and, because there was very little air traffic at the time, were delighted to take the time
to explain instrument panels, point out incoming and outgoing planes -- laughing at our childlike amazement. We even watched one Sunday as Arthur Godfrey arrived in his substantial prop plane, walked down the metal
stair ramp, into his waiting limousine, and, I am sure, happily drove away. This
is an outstanding "adventure" memory from my childhood.
Today, with Teterboro Airport on the horizon of becoming "Newark North", life here is not a child-like dream any
|