January, 04 2010, 03:07pm EDT
Backroom Deal Leaves Long Beach Truck Program in Hands of Polluting Industry
Clean Air Advocates Sue to Protect Local Communities and Clean Truck Program
LOS ANGELES
A backroom agreement between the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Long Beach Harbor Commission could illegally reverse efforts to improve air quality in communities surrounding the Port of Long Beach, according to a lawsuit filed last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club.
"You can't cut the public out of the conversation when you're talking about the air they breathe and the health consequences they face," said David Pettit, director of NRDC's Southern California Clean Air Program. "This deal puts the wolf in charge of the henhouse -- with a likely result of dirtier air for local communities. Industry cannot be allowed to dictate clean air efforts and rollback the Port's clean air advancements."
The new agreement gives the ATA authority to oversee future updates to the clean trucks program at the Port of Long Beach even if the Port is acting to protect public health and safety. The arrangement requires the Port of Long Beach to receive ATA's approval before making changes to the clean trucks program or risk the ATA filing a lawsuit.
"The problems posed to blighted communities and the environment are far greater than the simple issue of tailpipe emissions that this settlement tries to cover," Tom Politeo, spokesperson for the Sierra Club. "The superficial agreement is far more about a subsidy that buys shiny new trucks for the industry than of the reforms needed to establish environmental justice. It is protectionist to a floundering status quo at the cost of suffering residents, workers and the environment."
This private agreement, entered into on October 19, 2009, violates Long Beach Municipal Code and state law, which require public involvement and an environmental review. The NRDC lawsuit calls for a legally-required state environmental study of the agreement that includes public comment before it can move forward.
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are serviced by roughly 17,000 trucks, which are responsible for tons of diesel pollution in the Los Angeles region contributing to hundreds of premature deaths and chronic heart and lung diseases.
Under the new deal, the Port cannot stop trucking companies from using dirty trucks that fail to meet environmental and safety standards. The Port cannot deny a trucking company port access even if it commits large scale or repeated violations of federal, state, municipal, or port environmental, safety or security standards-unless the company's motor carrier license is revoked by federal or state authorities. Additionally, the agreement does not include requirements that would result in environmental benefits, including enforcement provisions, environmental maintenance requirements, financial capability requirements, and auditing provisions.
"This agreement repeatedly violates the public's trust," said Pettit. "Long Beach residents deserve transparency and honesty that the Port can easily provide if it simply complies with the law and completes a basic environmental assessment on the agreement."
The Long Beach Harbor Commission has repeatedly denied requests to examine potentially adverse health impacts under the new agreement as required under the California Environmental Quality Act and entered into the agreement without public approval by the Long Beach City Council.
Clean Truck Program Background:
In spring of 2008, the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles adopted clean trucks programs to modernize port trucking, reduce pollution and provide the ports with greater oversight over port trucking operations. The clean trucks program is comprised of three components: (1) a progressive truck ban that phases out older, dirtier trucks from port service over five years; (2) a fee assessed on cargo containers moved by truck that will be used to help subsidize the purchase of newer, cleaner trucks that comply with the progressive truck ban; and (3) concession agreements that require any trucking company dispatching trucks hauling cargo to or from the ports to become a concessionaire and adhere to obligations outlined within the concession agreement.
In July 2008, the ATA sued the Cities and Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles claiming that the concession agreement component of both ports' respective clean trucks programs is illegal under federal law. Los Angeles and Long Beach argued in response that the concession agreement is a valid exercise of the ports' authority as landlords and necessary to ensure that trucking companies meet critical environmental, safety and security standards that further the ports' business objectives.
Throughout the litigation, Long Beach maintained, up until the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners abruptly settled with ATA, that its concession agreement allowed the Port to hold an identifiable, financially-responsible entity accountable for compliance with the clean trucks program, and that the concession model produced environmental benefits. Now, Long Beach has abandoned its earlier position and entered into a new agreement behind closed doors that gives the ATA veto power over the port's and the city's ability to protect local residents.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Ahead of Treaty Negotiations, Hundreds March to 'End the Plastic Era'
"As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment," one young activists said.
Apr 21, 2024
Days before national delegates gather for the fourth and penultimate negotiations to develop a Global Plastics Treaty in Ottawa, Canada, around 500 Indigenous and community representatives, members of civil society and environmental groups, and experts and scientists gathered for a "March to End the Plastic Era" on Sunday.
The protesters, organized under the banner of Break Free From Plastic, called for a treaty that significantly reduces plastic production and centers the frontline communities most impacted by the plastics crisis.
"Delegates must act like our lives depend on it—because they do," Daniela Duran Gonzales, senior legal campaigner with the Center for International Environmental Law, said in a statement. "Our climate goals, the protection of human health, the enjoyment of human rights, and the rights of future generations all rest on whether the future plastics treaty will control and reduce polymers to successfully end the plastic pollution crisis."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet."
The official meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to craft a "international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment," will run from April 23 to 29 in the Canadian capital.
Break Free From Plastic called the negotiations a "make or break" moment for the treaty, which is supposed to be completed in late 2024 in Busan, South Korean. However, civil society groups have expressed concern that oil-producing countries and the plastics industry will water down the agreement and steer it toward waste management and recycling, which has been revealed to be a false solution to plastic pollution knowingly promoted by the industry for decades.
The last round of negotiations concluded in late 2023 in Nairobi, Kenya, with little progress made after 143 fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists attended.
Salisa Traipipitsiriwat of Thailand, who is the senior campaigner and Southeast Asia plastics project manager for the Environmental Justice Foundation, said ahead of Sunday's march that it was "crucial for world leaders to step up and put the people and planet at the forefront."
"Short-sighted business interests must be out of the room because the only way to achieve equitable livelihoods is when we have a healthy planet," Traipipitsiriwat added.
On Sunday, marchers gathered for a press conference at 10:30 am ET before marching at around 11:30 am from Parliament Hill to the Shaw Center, were negotiations will begin on Tuesday. Crowds began to disperse around 1:30 pm. Participants carried large banners with messages including, "End the plastic era," "End multigenerational toxic exposure," and pointing out that 99% of plastics came from fossil fuels. The gathering featured live music and art, including a giant tap pouring out plastics and a "Plastisaurus rex" with the message "Make single-use plastic extinct."
(Photo: Break Free From Plastics)
"Now's the time to be bold and push for a treaty that cuts plastic production and holds polluters accountable," Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a pre-march statement. "I'm inspired to be joining so many advocates in Ottawa, standing up against the enormous harm the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries are causing to people's health and the planet. I hope to see countries showing ambition this week, and I urge them to remember what's at stake for future generations."
Civil society groups have compiled several demands for an ambitious and effective treaty. These are:
- Centering human rights, especially those of Indigenous communities, young people, and workers most impacted by plastic pollution;
- Protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples throughout the treaty process;
- Dealing with plastics across their entire lifecyle;
- Reducing production as a "nonnegotiable" part of the treaty;
- Eliminating toxic chemicals and additives from plastics;
- Bolstering reuse systems for plastics that are non-toxic;
- Prioritizing first prevention, then reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal when managing plastic waste;
- Ending "waste colonialism" by strengthening regulations for trading plastics;
- Guaranteeing a "just transition" for people employed across the plastics lifecycle;
- Including "non-party" provisions in the treaty;
- Establishing a mechanism to fund countries so they can fully implement the treaty; and
- Enshrining conflict-of-interest policies as a protection against plastics industry lobbying.
The coalition emphasized the need to tackle the problem of plastic from cradle to grave.
"Plastic doesn't just become pollution when it's thrown away," said Jessica Roff, the U.S. and Canada plastics and petrochemicals program manager for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. "Plastic is pollution, from the moment the fossil fuels are extracted from the ground to the eternity of waste it spawns."
Chrie Wilke, global advocacy manager for the Waterkeeper Alliance, said "Clearly the crux of the plastic pollution crisis is too much plastic being produced. There is no way to recycle our way out of this. We must face the fact that plastic and petrochemicals, at current production levels, endanger waterways, communities, and fisheries across the globe. Cutting production and implementing non-plastic alternatives and reuse systems is essential."
(Photo: Ben Powless/Survival Media Agency)
Activists also emphasized the environmental justice implications of plastic pollution, and how some communities and groups are more burdened than others, both from the dangers of the production process and from waste disposal.
"Children and youth like me suffer the most and are recognized as a vulnerable group," said Aeshnina 'Nina' Azzahra, the founder of River Warrior Indonesia. "My playground and my future are at risk. We all want our environment to be plastic-free, but please don't put your burden on the other side of the world—this is NOT fair. As adults who come to Ottawa to negotiate the plastic treaty, you must protect our rights to live in a healthy and safe environment."
Jo Banner, co-founder and co-directer of The Descendants Project, said:"Frontline community members, such as myself, are participating in these treaty negotiations with heavy hearts as our communities back home are struggling with sickness and disease caused by the upstream production of plastic."
"Although our hearts are heavy, they are full with passion urging negotiators to aim for an ambitious treaty that caps plastic production," Banner added. "Areas such as my hometown, located in the heart of Louisiana's Cancer Alley, need a strong treaty now. There is no more time to waste."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Obvious Evidence of Genocide': Mass Grave Discovered in Gaza's Nasser Hospital
Palestinian rescue workers said they found hundreds of bodies, some with their hands bound and others with their skin, organs, or heads removed.
Apr 21, 2024
Palestinian civil defense discovered hundreds of bodies buried by Israeli forces in a mass grave inside the complex of Khan Younis' Nasser Medical Complex on Saturday.
Rescue workers said they had removed at least 200 bodies as of 12:00 pm local time on Sunday, and they estimated that at least another 200 remained, Middle East Eye reported.
"We found corpses without heads, bodies without skins, and some had their organs stolen," the director-general of the Government Media Office said in a statement shared by Quds News Network.
"Following the mass graves at Al-Shifa hospital, it looks like Israel is a voracious death machine turning hospitals in Gaza into graveyards."
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) withdrew from Khan Younis on April 7. While they occupied the city, they stormed the Nasser Medical Complex in February, arresting several doctors, damaging the structure with shelling, and rendering it unable to function as a hospital.
Al Jazeera reporter Hani Mahmoud said the bodies found in the Nasser grave included children, young men, and older women. Rescues said that some of the bodies they found had been buried with their hands tied behind their backs, according to Middle East Eye.
"Our teams continue their search and retrieval operations for the remaining martyrs in the coming days as there are still a significant number of them," Palestinian emergency services said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.
The news came as the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Saturday to send another $26 billion to Israel, including for military aid.
"These mass graves are obvious evidence of genocide and the most unthinkable war crimes. And yet, the House just signed off on $26 billion in weapons to fuel the genocidal Israeli military, while Israel threatens a full scale ground invasion to massacre Palestinians in Rafah," the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights said on social media.
This is not the first mass grave that has been discovered near a Gaza Strip hospital since Israel began its devastating bombardment and invasion following Hamas' deadly October 7 attack on southern Israel. When the IDF withdrew from the al-Shifa hospital earlier this month, Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat reported seeing hundreds of dead bodies outside the hospital, many that had had their hands and legs bound and their bodies run-over by bulldozers. Al Jazeera reported that several mass graves were found near al-Shifa.
"Following the mass graves at Al-Shifa hospital, it looks like Israel is a voracious death machine turning hospitals in Gaza into graveyards. Wake up world!" Palestinian politician and activist Hanan Ashrawi wrote on social media.
Muhammad Shehada, the communications chief for Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, expressed shock that there was not more media coverage of the Nasser grave.
"I CANNOT find a single headline in any mainstream media about this!" Shehada wrote on social media. "Imagine it was Ukraine? or Israel?"
Over the weekend, the the Gaza Health Ministry reported that the death toll from Israel's war on Gaza surpassed 34,000, though this is likely an undercount since several people remain trapped beneath rubble.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to Israel
"Most Americans do not want our government to write a blank check to further Prime Minister Netanyahu's war in Gaza," a group of nearly 20 of the 37 no-voting lawmakers said.
Apr 20, 2024
Nearly 40 House Democrats voted against a measure to send around $26 billion more to Israel as it continues its war on Gaza that human rights experts have deemed a genocide.
While the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act passed the Republican-led House by a vote of 366-58, party insiders said it was significant that such a large number of Democrats had opposed it, with more centrist lawmakers joining progressives who have called for a cease-fire since October.
"Despite the weapons aid package passing, this is the largest number of Democratic lawmakers to vote against unrestricted weapons aid for Israel in recent memory," senior Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid observed on social media.
"If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy."
Human rights lawyer, lobbyist, and former Democratic National Committee committeewoman Yasmine Taeb posted that it was "incredibly significant that 37 Democrats voted NO and rejected AIPAC's role and influence in the party."
Senior Democrats who opposed the funding included Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.)
The bill earmarks around $4 billion for Israel's missile defense systems and more than $9 billion for humanitarian aid to Gaza, according toThe Associated Press. However, while lawmakers approved of individual expenditures, they balked at giving more unconditional military aid to the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"U.S. law demands that we withhold weapons to anyone who frustrates the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid, and President Biden's own recent National Security Memorandum requires countries that use U.S.-provided weapons to adhere to U.S. and international law regarding the protection of civilians," McGovern said in a statement explaining his vote. "To date, Netanyahu has failed to comply. It's time for President Biden to use our leverage to demand change."
Nearly 20 Democratic representatives released a joint statement explaining their vote. They were McGovern, Doggett, Watson Coleman, Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Jesús "Chuy" GarcÃa (D-Ill.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), and Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii).
"This is a moment of great consequence—the world is watching," the lawmakers wrote. "Today is, in many ways, Congress' first official vote where we can weigh in on the direction of this war. If Congress votes to continue to supply offensive military aid, we make ourselves complicit in this tragedy."
The lawmakers clarified that their no votes were specifically "votes against supplying more offensive weapons that could result in more killings of civilians in Rafah and elsewhere."
While they acknowledged that Israel had a right to defend itself, they argued that its greatest security would come from a cease-fire that enabled the release of hostages, humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, and peace negotiations to begin in earnest.
"Most Americans do not want our government to write a blank check to further Prime Minister Netanyahu's war in Gaza," they concluded. "The United States needs to help Israel find a path to win the peace."
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who also voted no, said that he "could not in good conscience vote for more offensive weapons to be given to Israel to be used in Gaza without any conditions attached."
Pocan further called the "devastation inflicted upon innocent civilians in Gaza" "unjustifiable" and argued that "further arming Netanyahu and his extreme coalition could only lead us to a wider conflict in the Middle East."
In a speech on the House floor, Lee also criticized the bill for failing to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which provides the bulk of aid to the Gaza Strip. The U.S. paused funds for the agency following Israeli allegations that 12 of its employees participated in Hamas' October 7 attack, but other nations have since restored funding as the veracity of these allegations has been called into question.
"This is a grave abdication of U.S. humanitarian obligations," Lee said. "It is simply nonsensical to provide badly needed humanitarian assistance while simultaneously funding weapons that will be used to make the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worse."
She added, "The United States taxpayers should not be funding unconditional military weapons to a conflict that has created a catastrophic humanitarian disaster."
The bill sending funds to Israel was only one of several measures passed on Saturday as part of a $95 billion foreign spending package that will also provide a long-delayed approximately $61 billion for Ukraine in its war with Russia and around $8 billion to counter China in the Indian and Pacific oceans. Among the bills passed Saturday was one banning popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. if the Chinese company that owns it refuses to sell, theAP reported further.
The package will now go to the U.S. Senate, which could pass it as early as Tuesday. President Joe Biden has promised to sign the measures as soon as he receives them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular