{"id":439192,"date":"2026-08-21T07:56:17","date_gmt":"2026-08-21T07:56:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/439192\/"},"modified":"2026-08-21T07:56:17","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T07:56:17","slug":"one-mass-shooting-a-day-ports-new-agreement-doesnt-change-the-daily-cost-of-port-pollution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/439192\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cOne Mass Shooting A Day\u201d: Ports New Agreement Doesn\u2019t Change The Daily Cost Of Port Pollution –"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"One<\/a>Whitney Amaya of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (Left) and Maya Golden-Krasner of the Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity <\/p>\n

The Port of LA was proud of approving a new addendum to its cooperative agreement with the Air Quality Management District [AQMD] on Aug 14. Its press release featured Mayor Karen Bass calling it \u201canother bold, historic step toward putting sustainability at the forefront of everything we do at the Port of Los Angeles.\u201d<\/p>\n

But on the ground, Theral Golden, president of the West Long Beach Neighborhood Association, has a very different view. The cooperative agreement itself \u201cis not a rule, what the community wanted and pushed for from AQMD,\u201d Golden says. \u201cIt\u2019s not a rule that you can enforce, that\u2019s the most important thing to me.\u201d As a result, \u201cThe missing piece to me that no one actually looks at\u201d is that \u201cit\u2019s going to be 80 to 100 years from now\u201d before port communities get full relief from port pollution. \u201cIt won\u2019t be today.\u201d<\/p>\n

As things stand, \u201cWe lose over 1,200 people a year directly related to the ports\u2026 every year, that\u2019s the number of deaths they cause,\u201d Golden says. \u201cThey refuse to recognize that as important. That\u2019s more than one mass shooting a day.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dozens of organizations worked for more than a decade to get AQMD to adopt an indirect source rule for the ports, like the one that was adopted for warehouses, but a last-minute backroom deal last August resulted in the \u201ccooperative agreement\u201d between AQMD and the ports instead.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur communities have been advocating for a port indirect source rule for more than a decade,\u201d said Whitney Amaya, T.H.E. (Trade, Health and Environment) Impact Project Coordinator, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. \u201cThe process for the cooperative agreement was not collaborative \u2014 AQMD and the ports had their own meetings that excluded community and they had the ultimate say as to what would be included.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe District rushed through a toothless voluntary agreement that dodged its requirements to maximize environmental protection and ensure public safety and proper oversight,\u201d said Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. \u201cAngelenos deserve better from their air pollution agency.\u201d CBD is suing to challenge AQMD\u2019s final approval of the agreement as violations of both state and federal environmental law.<\/p>\n

Among other things, the suit argues, \u201cThe Voluntary Agreement constitutes an unlawful abrogation of AQMD\u2019s police powers\u2026AQMD, which has the statutory power and duty to regulate air quality, may not contract away that power.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rationale for avoiding direct regulation is questionable at best, Amaya stressed.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s been proven that regulations have helped to drive down emissions, but unfortunately there\u2019s a lot of misinformation that regulations will somehow lead to the economy collapsing,\u201d she said. \u201cRegulations have been implemented and it hasn\u2019t negatively impacted the economy. Warehouses keep expanding, and the ports keep growing. But at the end of the day, our communities continue to experience public health impacts because the pace of growth severely exceeds the action to reduce emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n

And without regulation, \u201cThe cooperative agreement has no actual goals for emission reductions,\u201d Amaya said. \u201cThere are measures that will hopefully facilitate emission reductions, but it\u2019s all aspirational without any goals and benchmarks. There\u2019s no transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n

While none of the organizations are happy with it, their perspectives vary, in part reflecting how close to the ground they are, and how many other battles they\u2019re fighting.<\/p>\n

The ports, of course, are quite pleased with themselves.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday, the Port of Los Angeles has the lowest pollution footprint per container move since measurements began more than two decades ago,\u201d said Executive Director Gene Seroka. \u201cThis next phase of the Cooperative Agreement builds on our success by focusing on the infrastructure and incentives that will accelerate the transition to zero-emission goods movement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the update, POLA \u201cwill enhance incentives for the cleanest ocean-going vessels, establish new incentives to increase the use of zero-emission trucks, and invest $20 million toward regional charging and fueling infrastructure for zero-emission drayage trucks,\u201d according to its press release.<\/p>\n

It may sound like a lot, but $20 million is less than 1% of POLA\u2019s 2025-2026 budget.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a drop in the bucket,\u201d said Amaya. \u201cIt\u2019s clear that they are more motivated by economics, than protecting public health. The ports can invest a lot more to ensure that they are reducing and eliminating the harm to communities, but instead they choose to focus on increasing the amount of cargo that\u2019s coming through the ports.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cOur South Bay\/San Pedro & Wilmington most impacted neighborhoods need more guarantees for our children & elderly who are at risk if the Twin PORTS\/LA\/LB don\u2019t live up to its said expectations,\u201d said Ricardo Pulido, with Coalition For A Safe Environment. \u201cWe must keep the POLA\/LB feet to the fire and make sure industry keeps its commitment for now and forever more!\u201d<\/p>\n

Others took a softer tone, while still stressing the need to do more.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re glad to see the San Pedro Bay Ports and South Coast AQMD commit to enhancing incentives that\u2019ll attract the world\u2019s cleanest vessels,\u201d said Cristhian Tapia-Delgado, climate campaigner for Southern California at Pacific Environment. \u201cThe cancer-causing emissions from these diesel vessels and harbor craft are felt deeply by those living near the port. The Cooperative Agreement must be a start, not an end, to strategies by the state agency and ports to clean up our air.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe community still wants real and quantifiable emissions reductions. Without the state and federal regulatory frameworks which were responsible for historical port emissions reductions, the ports must now prove that their words speak truth and their actions demonstrate it,\u201d said Dori Chandler, policy advocate with the Coalition for Clean Air. \u201cProfits should be put back to protecting people \u2014 let\u2019s follow the money on where POLA\u2019s actual priorities lie.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile encouraging to see the ports coordinating with SCAQMD to clean the air and reduce emissions, it is problematic that on-dock rail is missing from the cooperative agreement,\u201d said Alison Hahm, a staff attorney at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) \u201cThis is a missed opportunity and step back from SCAQMD\u2019s initial [ISR] rule concept. Port communities should not be forced to choose between good health and economic activity. We can have both. I hope the Ports and SCAQMD quickly shift from planning to achieving emission reductions. Everyone has the right to live and breathe with dignity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Amaya drilled down into specific concerns.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are no measures that are addressing the emissions coming from on dock rail. There\u2019s also nothing to address the emissions coming from cargo handling equipment or from harbor craft,\u201d she said. \u201cWe were hoping to see an expansion of the clean truck fund rate and have a Clean Freight Fee in order to collect incentive funding going towards electric zero-emission harbor craft, locomotives, cargo handling equipment, ships, and for supporting infrastructure. Currently, incentives are only for trucks, which is great, but we need action on more than just trucks.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition, \u201cHaving electric on-dock rail and also funding for electrification of the Alameda corridor were some of our other asks,\u201d she said. \u201cIt was designed to be electric, but unfortunately there hasn\u2019t been any investment into the actual electrification of the Alameda corridor.\u201d<\/p>\n

And of course, \u2018We also wanted to see periodic public health impact assessments so that there is transparency into the health impacts our communities are experiencing and how that\u2019s changing over time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Summing up, Amaya said, \u201cIt\u2019s hard to see how this will lead to emission reductions when there are so many different development and expansion projects going on at the ports where we\u2019re expected to see bigger ships, more cargo, which in turn leads to more trucks, more trains, more warehouses in our communities\u2026. The ports at a certain point stop factoring emissions into their emissions inventory, but that pollution doesn\u2019t disappear \u2014 we\u2019re still left to breathe polluted air in our communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Golden put it more bluntly. \u201cIts not a smart move when it comes to protecting the health and welfare of this community,\u201d he said. \u201cWe should not have to give up our lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Whitney Amaya of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (Left) and Maya Golden-Krasner of the Law Institute at…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":439193,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[174234,157032,174235,908,131,133,132,174236,72725,9722],"class_list":["post-439192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-long-beach","tag-airpollution","tag-cleanair","tag-envirometaljustice","tag-sanpedro","tag-long-beach","tag-long-beach-headlines","tag-long-beach-news","tag-pola","tag-polb","tag-rln"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=439192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439192\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/439193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=439192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=439192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=439192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}