The importance of making ports and shipping more environmentally friendly was the topic of a town hall meeting on Tuesday. Three California members of Congress have introduced legislation to minimize greenhouse gases in shipping corridors.

Global emissions from boats and ships account for about 3% of total greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Alisa Kreynes, head of ports and shipping for C40 Cities, a nonprofit network of mayors around the world, said it is an expensive and challenging battle to clean up shipping corridors, but it must be done.

"The actors who commit to these green shipping corridor partnerships do share risks, but they also share benefits," Kreynes explained. "That's the only way we're going to align the shipping sector on a decarbonization pathway to 1.5. That means breaking down some of the traditional ways of doing business."

C40 Cities and Pacific Environment, along with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, participated in the town hall.

When introducing the Clean Shipping Act of 2023, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said "California's port communities have been forced to shoulder the brunt of shipping pollution for too long." Other backers include Rep. Nanette Barragán, D-Calif., and Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif. The bill is endorsed by multiple environmental organizations.

C40 Cities has begun work on green shipping corridor programs not only with California ports, but with Shanghai and Singapore as well.

Dawny'all Heydari, climate campaign manager of advocacy for the nonprofit Pacific Environment, said without greener shipping ports, locals who live near them will suffer significant health problems, and some ports are already making headway.

"The San Pedro Bay Port has announced a number of green shipping corridors," Heydari pointed out, "to begin scaling low- and zero-emission fuels, and reduce and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and, by proxy, air pollution."

The American Lung Association has said the Los Angeles metropolitan area has some of the worst smog pollution in the nation. Emissions from oceangoing vessels are part of the problem.

A controversial bill on how best to clean up the air at California ports gets a hearing today in Sacramento.

Senate Bill 34 would place limits on the South Coast Air Quality Management District while it considers a proposal to accelerate progress toward zero-emission shipping at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Cristhian Tapia-Delgado, Southern California climate campaigner for the advocacy group Pacific Environment, said the bill would tie regulators' hands and urged the State Assembly Natural Resources Committee to reject it.

"It would stop the South Coast AQMD from being able to pursue pretty much anything that is related to the ports for at least the next decade," Tapia-Delgado contended. "They're citing unsupported claims that this is gonna set a cap on cargo, even though the ports indirect source rule does not contain any cargo throughput limits."

The bill would forbid caps on cargo or limits on port operations and require new regulations to address energy demand and supply, cost estimates and effects on the workforce. Ports would also be allowed to request extensions. The bill has already passed the state Senate. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Laura Richardson, D-San Pedro, did not respond to a request for comment.

Tapia-Delgado pointed out a proposed indirect source rule for ports has been in the works for nine years. He argued the rule is necessary to reduce pollution from trucks, trains, cargo ships, harbor craft and cargo handling equipment, which choke the air in nearby low-income communities of color.

"According to a Long Beach Health and Human Services Assessment, this pollution burden has actually resulted in an eight-year life expectancy difference for residents in port-adjacent communities when compared to the county average," Tapia-Delgado reported.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is still expected to take up the indirect source rule this fall.

As Congress debates the GOP's sweeping budget reconciliation bill, some lawmakers are working to include a provision which would delay a methane polluter fee.

The Waste Emissions Charge was meant to be an incentive for oil and gas operators to minimize leaks and flaring that send methane into the atmosphere by capturing it, and bringing it to market. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is more than 80 times more potent at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2.

Randy Willard, president of the nonprofit Save the Aurora Reservoir, said reining in pollution is important on a number of levels, including climate change.

"Also from an air standpoint, here in Colorado, we have some of the worst air in the country," Willard pointed out. "We know that 60% of that, at least, comes from oil and gas production in our space. And a big chunk of that is methane."

Colorado has failed to meet Environmental Protection Agency air quality standards for decades, coinciding with a boom in fracking operations. Some smaller oil and gas operators have complained about the costs associated with capturing methane. Delaying the pollution fee would be in sync with President Donald Trump's campaign promises to remove regulations on the fossil fuel industry in order to achieve energy dominance.

The International Energy Agency estimates at least 50% of oil and gas methane emissions can be avoided at no net cost to operators.

David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, believes the fee is critical for holding oil and gas companies accountable.

"They can spend the money necessary to reduce waste and capture and sell that methane and natural gas, or they can pay a fee for the pollution that they're emitting," Jenkins noted.

Americans largely support requiring oil and gas companies to pay pollution fees, according to a recent poll.

Jenkins added some operators are already deploying methane capture technologies, many of which were pioneered in Colorado.

"It just seems to make no sense why politicians, and some bad apples in the oil and gas industry, are pushing against something so basic," Jenkins observed. "And it does so much good for so little investment."


get more stories like this via email

Indiana residents now have a new way to track pollution from coal plants across the state.

The Sierra Club's new online national dashboard shows how rollbacks of federal pollution rules could increase harmful emissions from Indiana's dozen coal plants.

Robyn Skuya-Boss, director of the Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the data highlights risks for both rural and urban communities.

"Whether you're living in a larger city or in a small community, you could be being impacted," Skuya-Boss pointed out. "Some of the worst air quality in the nation is located in southern Indiana because there's such a high concentration of super-polluting coal plants."

The dashboard allows users to zoom in on specific plants and track pollutants like mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. Utilities and state officials said they follow current environmental laws and balancing energy needs and emissions limits can be complex.

Skuya-Boss stressed Indiana families deserve to know when air pollution may threaten their health.

"I think when people are tuned into those bad air quality days, what you start to see is that you can kind of get a sense of how impacted your community is by air pollution issues," Skuya-Boss observed.

Environmental groups said the dashboard also gives Hoosiers a tool to demand stronger action from state regulators and lawmakers.