Alaska Governor Palin Lobbied Against Air Quality Improvements At California Ports
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 09.13.08
Los Angeles Times reports that prior to her announced selection as Senator McCain's running partner, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sent a letter to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, stating her opposition to a California bill designed to improve air quality in and around major California ports. California ports manage vast numbers of cargo containers, some of which are redistributed from California to Alaska.
Palin's missive attacks Senate Bill 974, which has been approved by the state Legislature but needs Schwarzenegger's signature to become law...The bill would create a $60 fee for each 40-foot cargo container moving through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, which together handle more than 40% of the nation's goods.Via LAT, Palin asks Schwarzenegger to veto fees aimed at cutting pollution at California ports Image credit::Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times "A container ship sits idle at the Port of Los Angeles."
The Air Quality Impact Of Port Activities Is Serious
California has serious regional air quality problems to overcome; and, the material handling equipment and ships at major ports traditionally emit huge amounts of diesel exhaust. Impacts of that exhaust are not only occupational. Port emissions disperse to surrounding communities, where they can limit the expansion of other industries. When air quality is regionally bad, other industries wishing to expand in the future are limited in those plans by legally-permitted pollutant discharge caps - put in place to protect human health and safety.
Studies have demonstrated adverse human health impacts of California Air Quality.
"We are losing about 3,400 Californians each year because of pollution," Lowenthal said. "No matter what Gov. Palin would like to see happen, the impact is killing Californians. I don't think Gov. Palin truly understands the impacts going on here."The per-container fee would raise money to fund air quality improving measures: hybrid and electric material handling equipment at the ports, for example.
The False Choice Of Protecting Health Versus Consumer Costs
Did Governor Palin weigh the health and welfare of California workers and citizens in her decision to oppose the California measure? Whether yes, or no, matters little. Balancing human safety in California against cost of living in Alaska is a completely false choice.
Healthier port workers are more productive workers, with less time off. Healthier workers claim fewer health care benefits from employers.
Healthier families in surrounding communities expend less on health care, whether from employee funded benefits, or from taxpayers (via emergency room visits).
The measure could end up saving money for port operators, the State, and, indirectly, for Alaskans.
And, the measure makes a contribution to curtailing C02 emissions.
More On Palin From TreeHugger Archives
forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6125
Sarah Palin’s Record On the Environment: A Closer Look
Sarah Palin Shifting Position on Global Warming Cause? Stands Firm ...
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Any Nation That Wants to Combat Climate Change Has an Ally in the US: President-Elect Obama
- California Coughing Up $28 Billion a Year in Pollution Costs
- Scientists Report Global Warming Good for California
- The "Green Governor"? Schwarzenegger Vetoes Top Air Quality, Fish Protection Legislation
Did you include that part where it states that a large part of Alaska's good and services are shipped to the state via these ports?
So, just why was it that she chimed in? I don't understand why she would care or why she thinks her opinion should matter.
=== author's response follows ===
Same question I had. Below are some purely speculative possible reasons. Maybe others have better insights to add to the list.
Asked to do it by shipping company lobbyists, for cost control purposes?
Proposal sets precedent of using climate action as added benefit to justify an autonomous state environmental management choice.
==> Sub-narrative: wants to keep Federal authority superior, where lobbyists have greater control.
Appeals to the "free market Utopian" element of her Party's "base."
Building resume to line up future job with CEI. (joking)
Likes dirty air in California because it will force more people to move to Alaska (another joke)
I'm not sure anyone would be surprised that she would lobby against any sort of environmental law or policy. Her support of drilling in ANWR was enough to convince me that she's no friend of the environment.
From the article:
"Enactment of Senate Bill 974 will have negative impacts on both Alaska and California," Palin wrote. "For Alaskans, a very large percentage of goods [90% or more] shipped to Alaska arrive as marine cargo in a container."
The impact on California is none of her business. As far as the financial impact on Alaska, they can always take shipments through Seattle.
Besides, it seems fitting that all that oil money flowing to Alaska should help to pay for petroleum poisoning in California.
From the article:
"Enactment of Senate Bill 974 will have negative impacts on both Alaska and California," Palin wrote. "For Alaskans, a very large percentage of goods [90% or more] shipped to Alaska arrive as marine cargo in a container."
The impact on California is none of her business. As far as the financial impact on Alaska, they can always take shipments through Seattle.
Besides, it seems fitting that all that oil money flowing to Alaska should help to pay for petroleum poisoning in California.
Why would someone from another state be opposed to this fee, pure economics. Do you think manufacturers are not going to increase the cost of their merchandise for the consumers. It will cost more for everyone everywhere, not just in California. What does this mean. People will never be able to afford these items so now pay will have to increase for all businesses based in the states meaning cut backs elsewhere in the business (healthcare, pensions, jobs, etc.) just so they can offer a competitive price to their consumers.
There is also other potential that the ships will just move to a different port mean yes there will be better health for the dockworkers. Unfortunately they won't have jobs anymore.
So is Governor Palin in the wrong for voicing her opinion; NO! She is possibly going to be the new Vice President of the United States, so she is not necessarily looking at the best interest for Alaska, but all of America.
When I first read about the fee, I had to agree with her. Many of you are saying but the money will be going to research for ways to cut CO2 production, but as we all know, money can be reallocated to a different project without any voting. So how many of you believe all/any of that money will actually be applied to this research? Did I mention California is in a money crunch and many state jobs just had huge cutbacks.
So is this fee the appropriate action for California, NO! There are better options. Such as a fee per ship instead of per container. Say $1000 per ship, this will increase cost some but not much at all.
Just my 2 cents.
See below for people throwing the puzzling and tired epithet "socialist" around against the reporting of facts that will be interpreted as some sort of partial criticism.
Another pearl of the Palin environmental doctrine.
SIgh
""Mandatory I live in Alaska and you don't "" statement - and real people do live in Alaska, and you can come and visit anytime you would like.
GOV Palin opposed fee increases in California AND Oregon AND Washington.
Just about 100% of all food and consumer goods make to Alaska via ship. Very little arrives by diesel fume spewing trucks like in , say, California.
Sorry, back to the task at and -- The GOV was doing her job in trying to protect her constituents from being gouged by this and other TAX HIKES.. It is less about the environment, and more about TAXES - at least as seen from the Frozen North.
Now, to be fair, when you buy gasoline (pretty much anywhere in the West) made from Alaska crude oil (BTW, you are welcome) you pay more because she also raised the taxes on big oil up here. Really, a lot - more than Hugo Chavez taxed the oil companies in his country.... but I am off topic.
If you live "Outside" it is a two edged sword. You now have to pay a lot more for gas but on the plus side, big oil cancelled many oil drilling projects slated to start with winter - so I guess that would be a plus for the environment.
On the down side again, when the oil from Alaska stops, where will you buy your gasoline?
Anyway - I hope this answers some of the questions posted - and remember, you can come anytime to visit.
==== author's response follows ====
Thanks for the perspective from Alaska.
All freight distributed in the USA, coming from Asia/Pacific via California ports, will be similarly affected by a flat (not a percentage) per cargo container levy; therefore all US states receiving goods from CA ports will experience identical incremental cost impacts, per container. This makes it seem peculiar for Governor Palin to lobby against the measure while (apparently) other governors did not.
Hello John
The container tax impacts Alaska as the bulk of the goods and food come from the USA and not China. Not such is the case for folks buying food in AZ or say, NM.
As for the other States not fussing, I would guess their pols are asleep at the switch or don't really care about thier citizens.
I can remeber a couple of years back when Oregon passed a $5 fee on out of state users of their park system. SO, NV passed a special fee for Oregon residents using NV park system - I think you can see where this could end up....
I don't think the GOV was plotting the "Death by bad air" of locals, just trying to keep a lid on costs, perhaps the head line could have read
Alaskan GOV stands up for Alaskan citizens -
something less misleading than your posting.....
=== author's response follows ===
Right. Exactly as Garret Hardin named it: Tragedy of the Commons. Each person or leader looks out principally for his/her own vital interests and in doing so -without first seeking insight into the needs of others - erodes the common interest to the point where no user of the commons can survive from it further.