This is definitely not good news for Long Beach, which derives revenue from port traffic.
It's another indication, I think, that we will be in an international recession.
One of my Saturday running routes is basically go as far as I can on Appian (which becomes 4th), and the turn around and come back. There are lot of shops/cafes down that street, and I fear that a good chunk will not make it through. I fear that a good amount of the neighborhoods that were gentrified will be become un-gentrified in the coming year.
I'll know when that happens when I feel unsafe to run on that route...
Regarder Mille mots (2012) [vf] gratuit de qualité hd en ligne, [voir hd] A
Thousand Words (2012) streaming vf (film complet) putlocker, (regarder)
Mille m...
5 years ago
12 comments:
This can be a good thing.
Declines in export traffic means declines in Ship Traffic -- spewing the worst air from the dirtiest fuel, putting millions in the region at increased risk. It means declines in truck traffic causing gridlock on the region's freeways.
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIDraftFinalReportJuly2008.html
The tradeoff is of course that you have lost jobs, unemployed familes, increase in crime, and neighborhood blight. My sense is that the net benefit is negative.
well
first of all, maybe it's time to invest even more in a thriving alternative energy industry.
"it is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it's an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States."
http://debatehub.c-span.org/
Unfortunately, the L.A. region and at the port complex in particular, bears an unfair burden, just so the rest of the country can get cheaper imported goods.
second, one could say that the reverse of this argument is: drill, baby, drill. and start to exploit ANWR
"between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain."
http://www.anwr.org/ANWR-Basics/Top-ten-reasons-to-support-ANWR-development.php
I completely agree that we should invest in alternate energy industry. However, that is not a qualitative substitute for international trade.
As for LA region bearing an "unfair" burden, that can always be compensated by exacting a higher toll fee to offset that. But it's hard to do that with a declining international demand.
As for comparisons to ANWR, no one will ever mistake the ports as prinstine national parks. The environmental impacts of the two are apples to oranges.
And if envrionemntal impact is the only thing that matters, then it would be a good thing for suburbs like Simi Valley to die- the resulting reduction in pollution and gridlock would probably be greater than what reduced port traffic would get you.
However, at this point this can only be achieved with great economic stress. Is that something we should strive for as a matter of public policy?
do you realize that the ports are responsible for more than one-fifth of the smog in the L.A. basin? 20% that's a huge amount.
http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/2002/portpr.htm
and realize that while cancer risk in the region's air has been getting better, thanks in part to tougher emissions standards, it's the ports that are way behind.
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/MATESIIDraftFinalReportJuly2008.html
I think you better rethink more about your hypothesis that suburbs are more deadly to the environment.. that if environmental impact were the only thing, then "it would be a good thing for suburbs, like Simi Valley, to die"
Ports may be a large component of pollution, but you have no meaningful substitute. You can cut out 20% of the pollution by killing off ports. But what are you going to put in its place? International trade account for 20-30% US GDP, are you willing to take a 30% pay cut tomorrow?
In contrast, there are existing substitutes for suburbs that are more environmentally friendly. This is not say we should do it. But if you're looking to reduce pollution, shutting down trade is not the most cost-effective way to do it.
This is not about killing off ports, this is about the effect of the LA/LB port complex on the environmental health of the region, versus jobs.
are there ways for the port to mitigate its effect on the environmental health of the region, w/out reducing trade?
Yes. use cleaner marine fuel -- but as most ships follow rules of other countries, that's something that will take smart forward-thinking international agreements.
cleaner trucks (in process). Plug-in power while docked (in the process.) increase capacity at other West Coast ports (this of course spreads the pollution around, but all the better for the health of the L.A. region).
AND meanwhile, speaking of GDP, the port complex shows, in a drastic way, the difference in imports vs. exports.
LA: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Stats/stats_2007.htm
(2.8 million more loaded TEUs inbound than outbound)
LB: http://www.polb.com/economics/port_stats/yearly_teus.asp
(2.1 million more loaded TEUs inbound than loaded outbound)
there are substitues for suburbs, but there are not _existing_ substitutes for suburbs. just as there are not existing subsitutes for the largest port complex, and the largest single point source of pollution in the region.
There are definitely ways to reduce pollution without killing off trade. Which is why a reduction in pollution is not a good silver lining for reduction in trade.
The other point is that while The ports are responsible for 20% of the pollutions in LA, since it provides goods for about 50 million people, on a per capita basis the ports probably constitutes 2-3% of the pollution.
3% of the pollution for 30% of the per capita GDP.
The inbound-outbound traffic disparity was shrinking thanks to dollar depreciation. Which is why the decline in outbound traffic due to slowdowns in international demand is of concern.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pollute13-2008nov13,0,3895359.story
The California economy loses about $28 billion annually due to premature deaths and illnesses linked to ozone and particulates spewed from hundreds of locations in the South Coast and San Joaquin air basins, according to findings released Wednesday by a Cal State Fullerton research team.
Most of those costs, about $25 billion, are connected to roughly 3,000 smog-related deaths each year, but additional factors include work and school absences, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses, said team leader Jane Hall, a professor of economics and co-director of the university's Institute for Economics and Environment Studies.
In the meantime, the two regions continue to pay a steep price for generating air pollution ranked among the worst in the country. In the South Coast basin, that cost is about $1,250 per person per year, which translates into a total of about $22 billion in savings if emissions came into compliance with federal standards, Hall said. In the San Joaquin air basin, the cost is about $1,600 per person per year, or about $6 billion in savings if the standards were met.
The savings would come from about 3,800 fewer premature deaths among those age 30 and older; 1.2 million fewer days of school absences; 2 million fewer days of respiratory problems in children; 467,000 fewer lost days of work and 2,700 fewer hospital admissions, according to the study.
The study noted that attaining the federal standard for exposure to particulates would save more lives than lowering the number of motor vehicle fatalities to zero in most of the regions examined.
The hardest hit were fast-growing communities in Kern and Fresno counties, where 100% of the population was exposed to particulate concentrations above the average federal standard from 2005 to 2007. High rates of exposure were also found in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, where diesel soot is blown by prevailing winds and then trapped by four mountain ranges.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tugboat13-2008nov13,0,2191379.story
For all of its 21st-century advancements, the shipping industry drags a lot of old technology around.
Giant vessels are so sophisticated these days that they require only a handful of crew members. But the ships still burn a thick, dirty sludge called bunker fuel while at sea and slurp diesel to keep the lights and air conditioning running while in port.
Inefficient yard tractors and cranes guzzle fuel and spew exhaust as they stack containers. And tugboats, pound for pound the most powerful vessels on the water, waste most of that muscle idling or cruising.
Now, as seaports try to raise their environmental standards, some companies are finding business opportunities.
Foss Maritime Co. of Seattle, for instance, has developed the Prius of tugboats, which consumes less diesel and generates less pollution by using batteries for all the vessel's low-power needs. Foss calls it the world's first hybrid tug and expects to deliver it to San Pedro harbor early next year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/economy/19ports.htm
For now, the port itself is the destination. Unwelcome by dealers and buyers, thousands of cars worth tens of millions of dollars are being warehoused on increasingly crowded port property.
And for the first time, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and Nissan have each asked to lease space from the port for these orphan vehicles. They are turning dozens of acres of the nation’s second-largest container port into a parking lot, creating a vivid picture of a paralyzed auto business and an economy in peril.
Post a Comment