Clean air is a human right. And right now is a key time to make sure our state’s leaders make a decision with that fact in mind.

California’s trucks, trains and ships emit a tremendous amount of pollution into the air we breathe, robbing us of our health (especially the health of children) and contributing significantly to climate change. But we can change all of this for the better with just one signature.

The California Air Resources Board has developed a strategy that shifts what our trucks, trains and ships use to a much cleaner and much healthier system so we can breathe easier -- literally. Now, we need to show our support.

We need your help to tell California how much we need clean air. Join EHC and clean air avocates around the state in urging California to adopt a strong policy that shifts trucks, trains and ships away from pollution and creates #healthyhoods for us all.

Please sign the petition now!

Last week, SANDAG has had their Regional Transportation Plan (passed in 2011) rejected a second time by an appeals court for failing to offer plans that address how future planning will decrease air quality and contribute to climate change. 

The court has stated, as our community has advocated for, that San Diego needs a plan that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from car traffic. 

SANDAG will be making a decision soon on whether or not to use more of our public funds to challenge the court’s ruling. Or, SANDAG can chose to do the right thing and move forward with a plan that prioritizes transit, biking and pedestrian projects first.

Choosing to fight the courts' findings will continue to waste taxpayer funds and further entrench the San Diego region in an unsustainable, unhealthy and inefficient transportation future.

Congratulations are in order for latest graduates of our SALTA leadership-training course. SALTA (Salud Ambiental, Líderes Tomando Acción – Environmental Health, Leaders Taking Action) is a nine-session program that provides skills training on organizing, advocacy, power, and media relations. Since 1995, more than 1,500 Community Leaders have graduated from SALTA including EHC staff members Rodrigo, Tuann, Aurora, Maria Sagura and Monique.

This SALTA course is the first ever to be taught in three different languages: English, Spanish and Vietnamese. 

“Each time I facilitate a SALTA session I am amazed and inspired by the community leaders who attend. This session was no different,” says SALTA facilitator Sarah Furman. “These women and men take hours out of their lives each week to learn how to make their communities healthier and more united - something that doesn't go unnoticed by EHC staff and members. Because of these community leaders we continue to be a strong voice and force in the San Diego region, improving our communities one action at a time.”

Student and EHC staff Aurora Zabish was equally inspired, "I liked seeing that there are people in the community that care enough about their communities to participate in a training like this." 

Associate Director Leticia Ayala comments, “SALTA empowers community members by sharpening their skills as leaders and organizers. With those abilities developed, we can take action to build power and win justice in our neighborhoods so that our communities are a clean and healthy place to live, work and play.”

But SALTA is not just a leadership-training course. It is also designed to motivate community leaders to take strong and direct action for environmental justice. Ayala says, “One of SALTA’s key goals is to help all residents to see themselves as community leaders and then make a pledge to join our cause. They can use their own power and the power of their communities collectively to move and influence decision makers. After SALTA, these leaders can create the real change we all want in our neighborhoods.”

The Port of San Diego and the UT both released stories recently about the Port’s dramatically reduced air pollution and greenhouse gases from its operations between 2006 and 2012. And it is good news for our climate, for the region as a whole, and for the workers at the Port terminals and the residents of neighborhoods immediately downwind, such as Barrio Logan and west National City. While we join the Port in welcoming the downward trend in emissions, we must offer some additional perspectives and a note of caution.

1. Port Operations are a small piece of the emissions pie along San Diego Bay.

The Port’s report covers only the emissions from Port operations themselves. The Port is not tracking emissions from their tenants, such as the shipyards or other waterfront industries, nor from the airport or the Navy.

Why is that important? While the Port manages operations within some of the operations along San Diego Bay, including the cargo terminals in San Diego and National City, the Port leases 66 percent of the land (not including the airport and the Navy) to a variety of tenants, including shipbuilding and repair companies, a gas turbine manufacturer, several large hotels, restaurants and retail shops. Port operations are a small portion of emissions compared to those of its tenants, not to mention the airport and Navy. For example, one Port tenant--General Dynamics-NASSCO-- was the single largest air pollution emitter in the U.S. EPA’s most recent Toxic Release Inventory, the federal right-to-know law.

A full and transparent accounting of the air quality impact of the Port must include the emissions of all businesses along the bay. The lungs of people downwind do not distinguish between the pollutants from Port operations and those of Port tenants.

2. “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Some portion of the drop in Port air emissions was due to the severe economic recession of 2008, which reduced both cruise and cargo ship traffic for several years. The Port’s report acknowledges this impact, but not the concerning corollary-- as the economy picks up again, emissions will rise. New growth at the Port’s cargo and cruise terminals must be accompanied by new investment in clean technologies, such as electrification of diesel emission sources. Workers and downwind residents should not subsidize economic growth with their health.

3. Requirements are more effective than asking nicely.

State and federal regulations drove a large part of the emission reductions as well. California Air Resources Board laws that were adopted or went into effect since 2006 forced reductions in emissions of ships and trucks visiting California terminals by requiring trucks to use cleaner emissions technologies and ships to use electricity, rather than diesel engines, while docked at shore. The Port, to its credit, made California’s port truck rule (Drayage Truck Rule) more effective by banning noncompliant trucks from cargo terminals starting in 2011.

Regulations work far more effectively than voluntary programs. The Port, the State, and local governments should learn from this and keep implementing more requirements to reduce emissions and use cleaner technologies, for the sake of our health and our future.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) recently voted to expand our freeways by adding carpool lanes and bus-only lanes. Research shows that even coupling freeway expansion with carpooling and transit is not an effective way to relieve traffic congestion. As transportation justice advocates we know the solution to our meeting our transportation needs in a clean and healthy way means increased public transit, bicycling and walking paths before we resort to freeway expansion.

Freeway expansion doesn’t relieve traffic congestion.

Expanded freeways lead to more driving, more pollution and more greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Freeway expansion does not lead to less traffic. Repeat: Freeway expansion does not lead to less traffic. A study at UC Berkley covering thirty California counties between 1973 and 1990 found that for every ten percent increase in roadway capacity, traffic increased nine percent with a four years’ time. If we build the roads, cars will fill them.

Freeway expansion doesn’t support our economy.

Did you know expanding only one to two miles of state route 94 costs a whopping $500-600 million? Alternatively, this money could go to significant public transit upgrades that would stimulate our economy much more than freeway expansion. Research affirms that for every $10 million invested in public transit...

• Over 570 jobs are created in transit operation
• Business sees a $30 million increase in sales
• $15 million is saved by both highway and transit users

Freeway expansion worsens air quality and the effects of climate change.

Adding lanes to a freeway (even carpool lanes) still increases the amount of pollution each freeway emits. More lanes mean more cases of asthma, heart disease and cancer for communities near freeways who are already overburdened with poor air quality.

Why building new roads doesn't ease congestion (An excerpt from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream). By. Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. North Point Press, 2000, pp. 88-94. 

Litman, Todd. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel Implications for Transport Planning. 24 April 2014. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 

Snyder, Tanya . Study: Building Roads to Cure Congestion Is an Exercise in Futility. May 31, 2011. 

Downs, Anthony. Why Traffic Congestion Is Here to Stay... and Will Get Worse. Access. NUMBER 25, FALL 2004

Public Transportation and the Nation’s Economy: A Quantitative Analysis of Public Transportation’s Economic Impact; Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Economic Development Research Group