Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Open Thread for Tuesday

On this day in 1963 in Dallas, Texas, US President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and Texas Governor John B. Connally was seriously wounded. Later the same day, US Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States.

7 Comments:

Blogger dgarzila said:

MAyor Sam:

CHristmas is coming up and the shirts we could buy are all gone . What happened to them.

I like the one about playing on the 101. Whenver I go to city hall I was going to wear that t-shirt.

what happened to the shirts?

November 22, 2005 9:04 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

On-air gaff of the a.m.? (or not?) -- in closing at 9 a.m., KFI's Bill Handle promos tomorrow a.m.'s story on the indictment of ALEX Padilla? (I swear, that's what he said. . .) but did he mean "dirty bomber" JOSE?

November 22, 2005 10:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Harbor Commission did something really important at its meeting yesterday.

They directed staff ro revise the proposed Environmental Impact Report and leases for the Berth 206-209 propeerty and a new cruise line at the cruise terminal to require that ships calling there use 1.5% sulfur fuel while traveling within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin.

While 1.5% fuel - 15,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur - is almost 50% cleaner than the 27-28,000 ppm fuel currently in use, it is 1000 times dirtier than the upcoming 15 ppm requirement for California on road diesel fuel. So this is only a waystation on the road to safe air, but it is an important waystation.

If this requirement was implemented throughout the two ports, it would be the one biggest immediate step which could be taken to reduce, or at least slow the rate of increase, of toxic, carcinogenic, diesel pollution.

We have been told, over and over, by the Port staff, the previous Harbor Commission, and the industry, that this cannot be done. Yesterday, the Harbor Commission ordered it to be done as a condition of these new leases.

This is a brave and responsible step. Those who have followed this issue on the Sister City blog know that I have been extremely critical of the ports, and their historically irresponsible neglect of the public health and safety. However, credit where credit is due.

Well done Harbor Commission. We can only hope that this brave initiative spreads throughout both ports, as a condition of any new leases. It would be a good first step in making our Air Basin a safe place to live.

November 22, 2005 11:32 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Noel,

The North Valley couldn't agree with you more. Chatsworth, Porter Ranch, Granada Hills and Sylmar are all following your port story. We understand that your air quality affects the whole city.

Good luck and congratulations on the Harbor Commission's decisions.

November 22, 2005 9:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sounds like the Harbor Commission is taking some commendable steps in the right direction regarding pollution. I still doubt, however, that the powers that be will gleefully fork over the estimated $11.4 to $15.6 billion to implement the No Net Increase measures.

And if you're still checking this thread Noel, can you elaborate on your quote in Tuesday's Breeze article about the the need for some numbers and not just a vague list?

November 22, 2005 11:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Many thanks 9:22. We support you as well.

"We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin

11:11, the "No Net Increase" "plan" is a long list of suggested control measures with an estimated reduction and cost attached to each.

In this latest "plan", the Port staff has deleted a substantial number of these measures, claiming that they do not meet with "Harbor Commission policies", whatever that means.

Representatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Coalition for Clean Air all appeared to object to the removal of these measures.

My comment was that a list of possible measures by itself accomplishes nothing. It does not even commit the Port to do anything.

What is needed is a sort of spread sheet which shows how much pollution each measure would remove, balanced against the existing level of pollution, and the increases which will come from normal growth of throughput through the existing Port, and all of the 10 or 12 expansion projects which are currently on the books.

Up to now, the token pollution control efforts undertaken have been almost instantly wiped out by the often double digit increase in the total traffic. Until everyone can truly see on paper whether the pollution goes up, down or sideways, we are just dealing from ignorance. Furthermore, unless there is a real, quantifiable, strategy to actually lower it to a safe level, all is spin and press releases.

In addition, there is no commitment to when, if ever, these measures will actually be put into place. Meanwhile the emissions keep growing month by month. So the question is, when, if ever, will the control measures ever catch up with the growth and begin to lower the existing levels. If we have to endure current, or higher, pollution levels for the next ten years, there are going to be a lot (thousands) of sick people, and hundreds of premature deaths. That is no exaggeration. If the present rate of progress is maintaines, this is exactly what will happen.

I can go on about this until Christmas, but maybe this is enough for one comment. If you are still checking this thread, let me know if you can stand to hear more.

Thanks for following this. The future of our communities is on the line.

Also, check the stories in the Breeze and the Press-Telegram today about the Federal EPA's $8 million grant to the Southern California Particle Research Center, which is doing the definitive work on this issue.

November 25, 2005 10:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thanks for your response, and I agree with your logic about using a spreadsheet etc. I hope the Harbor Commission and (hopefully new) Executive Director really accomplish something in this regard.

November 25, 2005 7:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement