Air pollution and the ports

Re “Full speed ahead,” editorial, Feb. 29

Rather than celebrating as described in your editorial, our members have been discussing what actions the industry can take to move forward to reduce air emissions. To that end, our board of directors is recommending that our members continue to use low-sulfur fuel in auxiliary engines at 24 nautical miles.

Our lawsuit did not challenge the state’s authority to regulate emissions, but rather that the state needed to get a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency. Four federal judges have agreed with our position. If California gets a waiver, its regulations would become the de facto national standard. Any other process would result in a patchwork quilt of regulations.

Our members have been involved in numerous voluntary programs with the ports, or have agreed to various programs through lease negotiations. The effort to reduce emissions at our ports is a dynamic one, not static as the editorial portrays.

John R. McLaurin

President

Pacific Merchant

Shipping Assn.

San Francisco

It’s terrible that any company would jeopardize people’s lives with pollution. I suppose that is just the world we live in -- a world in which money, to some, is the most important thing. What I am confused about, however, is why the EPA would reject the state’s waiver request. Isn’t the point of the EPA to protect the environment?

Jonathan Cowan

Las Flores

There is an easier way for California to obtain cleaner air than trying to force stricter standards on the rest of the U.S., most of which is quite tired of California officials leading the charge as though they were Don Quixote.

Simply put, the state can close its ports. Let those polluting old tubs go down to Mexico or up the coast to Oregon or Washington. California needs clean air worse than jobs, right? With no operating ports, those dirty, freeway-hogging semis would be mostly gone too. There would be far fewer trains blocking highway crossings and mashing the occasional bus to smithereens.

Joe Doremire

Fountain Hills, Ariz.

Air-quality specialists have known for years that large marine vessels create significant air pollutants in coastal areas. For much of the year, the prevailing onshore wind carries ship emissions far inland, potentially affecting millions of people. A simple, inexpensive and easily verified control exists that regulators are overlooking: biofuels.

Biofuels, including biodiesel and straight vegetable oil, contain almost no sulfur. Regulators only need to require ships operating within 24 nautical miles of the coast to burn biodiesel or straight vegetable oil to realize a significant reduction in airborne toxics. There is no need to require costly new engines -- the reason the shipping industry is fighting regulation. Sometimes the easiest solutions are overlooked because they are the simplest.

Dave Morrow

Twentynine Palms