Dirty Truths About Big Ports
California’s giant ports are harming local communities while providing few economic benefits
Across the bay from San Francisco and within spitting distance of Oakland lies the island of Alameda. Once home to the Naval Air Station Alameda (before it was abandoned), the western end of the island is now a desolate wasteland, filled with empty airplane hangars and cracked concrete. Aside from this little hiccup, however, the rest of Alameda isn’t too shabby. Boasting unparalleled views of the city, a booming job market, not to mention the perfect balance between city life and small town charm, Alameda might seem like a perfect place to settle in. However, all is not as it seems — an invisible blackness lingers in the air, waiting. But more on that later.
Separating Alameda from the mainland of Oakland is a narrow strait known as the Oakland estuary. While popular among kayakers and recreational boaters, the channel is almost always occupied by large freighters moving in and out of the the Port of Oakland,which is just adjacent to the abandoned Navy base.
I spent my past two summers working at at a boatyard on Alameda’s northern end, juxtaposed between the bridges of Park Street and Fruitvale Avenue. Part of my job description was to pilot our Protector 30' Targa whenever the custom-built catamarans needed in-water testing in case something malfunctioned. On testing days, usually around once a week, I would hop in the Protector while the workers went through the tedious process of lowering the vessel into the water. Eventually, the boat gently landed in the water, the latches were promptly detached from the crane, the test pilot boarded the vessel, and we set sail.
Limited by the strict speed limits in the estuary, we slow to a snail’s pace; about 8–10 knots. We leisurely tread the murky waters of the Oakland Estuary, until after about 20 minutes, we prepare to exit the estuary so we can test the capabilities of our boats. We start to pass by massive cargo freighters, patiently waiting underneath the large white cranes that lined the right side of the estuary. Undoubtedly, we were passing the Port of Oakland, the third largest port in the state of California, fifth largest in the United States.
As testing went on throughout the summer, we passed by the port countless times, each time paying less attention to it than the last. It never really occurred to me that every time I sailed past the port, I was exposing myself to the high concentration of toxic air that gravitates around ports. As you might imagine, massive freighters that enter and exit the port every day tend to create a huge amount of pollution (when I say pollution, I mean the combined output of black carbon and nitrogen oxide, which together create smog). Combine this with port-related machinery, tugboats used to position the freighters in place, and big-rig trucks loading up the shipping crates, you have an ideal recipe for massive amounts of pollution.
Yeah, yeah, everyone knows that everything we do emits pollution. However, when it comes to pollution, large ports such as Oakland’s are jeopardized by both the kind of fuel used by freighters and the effects burning that fuel has on the surrounding environment.
A cargo ship isn’t designed to run on the same mixture of gasoline that you use to fill up your car. Freighters have the luxury of sauntering past their local 76 station. Instead, they use what is known as Fuel Oils, specifically Heavy Fuel Oils. Resident genius of Alameda, David Hall, explains it like this: “In theory, the ships burn clean fuel when in port… But if they burn the fuel that is used to cross the ocean, that is some of the worst pollution on the planet.”
The fuel used by freighters to cross the ocean is much less refined than the gasoline we’re used to, and as such it’s are much cheaper. Unfortunately, the pollution that emanates from engines using fuel oil is much more toxic than regular gas-station gasoline.
As a result, the toxic waste from the constant travel of freighters within the Strait, as well as the large trucks that service ports, begins to spread around the residential areas surrounding ports. In the Port of Oakland’s case, the pollution directly affects residents of Alameda, Oakland and even stretches across the bay to San Francisco, whose once-bustling port is now mostly a tourist trap. “Community residents and workers know all too well the ‘real costs’ of Port trucking operations: they feel it in effects on their health, on their safety, on their neighborhoods,” said Swati Prakash, Senior Research Associate at the Pacific Institute’s Community Strategies for Sustainability and Justice Program, coauthor of a recent report on port pollution.
The picture doesn’t end with the freighters sailing off into the sunset. The cranes that are constantly in motion (how else would they manage to transport 2,394,069 standard 20-foot shipping crates in a single year?)also require a lot of fuel.
The evidence that the pollution created by the ports is harmful to their surrounding environments is understatedly overwhelming. Scientists have discovered links between asthma and cancer as a result of being within a close proximity of the port.Twenty percent of the children living in Alameda County have been diagnosed with asthma. People living within the vicinity of the port “breathed air with three times more diesel particles than Bay Area residents in general.”
As mentioned earlier, the Port of Oakland is the third largest port in California, with the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach taking first and second place, respectively. That means that the already-bad problems associated with the Port of Oakland are practically dwarfed by its siblings.
The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are literally right next to each other, forming what we can call a Superport.
As one might expect, the existence of the Superport means that the area surrounding carries more issues compared to the other ports for a reason unique to Los Angeles: its geography.
The Port of Long Beach occupies a massive 3,200 acres of what used to be valuable beach front, land that could otherwise be used for small businesses and homes. Instead, this land is rendered economically useless for Long Beach’s population — none of the profit of the port goes into the local economy. Essentially, this massive slab of concrete that wasn’t even necessary in the first place is stealing from Long Beach’s population, and giving them health issues in return.
While gas-powered vehicles, and the 11,874,000 million Los Angelenos that drive them, along with industries, factories, etc., all crammed into a relatively small space is a recipe for a mess, the real problem lies in Los Angeles’ geography: several mountain ranges surround the greater Los Angeles area, most of which happens to be pretty close to sea level. These mountain ranges make what is known as the Los Angeles Basin.
Unfortunately, the mountain ranges are too high for most of the pollution we create to escape, so the pollution lingers. On the other side of the basin is the Pacific Ocean, which acts as yet another barrier for dirty air: the water creates what is known as an inversion layer, a small layer of air that resides above the city. This further prevents pollution from escaping.
The combined emissions of cargo ships, trucks, and machinery that the ports are responsible for creates a hotbed of pollution that has nowhere to go, so it loiters in the Long Beach area. As a result, an alarming 15 percent of children in Long Beach have contracted asthma.
The environmental problem with ports in California has not gone unnoticed. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (back when it wasn’t a joke to our Commander-in-Chief) passed the Pollution Prevention law, also known as P2. The EPA states that, “Pollution prevention is reducing or eliminating waste at the source by modifying production processes, promoting the use of nontoxic or less toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, and reusing materials rather than putting them into the waste stream.”
Since 2010, efforts to reduce the pollution emitted by the ports, while new, are making decent headway and the air surrounding the ports is getting somewhat more breathable. SFgate reportst that as of 2012, the Port of Alameda confirmed that “from 2005 to 2012 the port’s diesel particulate matter emissions, which are linked to respiratory problems, have tumbled 70 percent, from 261 tons to 77 tons.” Likewise, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the Port of Oakland’s “particulates called black carbon decreas(ing) 76 percent, while nitrogen oxides fell 53 percent from 2009 to 2013.”
In a perfect world, my article should end here. There’s a problem that we ignored for a while, but, as shown by efforts conducted by the ports in accordance with the EPA-approved P2 law, pollution is diminishing. Unfortunately, any article about such progress would be remiss in not noting that the current administration’s disregard for pollution and how it affects the population, both on a local scale as well as worldwide, jeopardizes that progress. Donald Trump has shown very little interest in maintaining the EPA, an agency that is crucial in protecting the environment and the people who live in it (us). Trump’s proposed budget asks for a 31 percent funding cut to the EPA, which his pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma’s Scott Pruitt, has a long record of support for big oil and disdain for environmental regulations.
Do you live near a port? You can find information and answers from any of several organizations that focus on helping reduce the adverse impacts ports have on our environment, such as the Oakland/Berkeley Community Action to Fight Asthma, or Long Beach-based Interfaith Community Organization.
