Help !!! A piece of news cutting about pollution

Riding a tide of regional discontent over noxious emissions, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are yielding to public health concerns in a way that has dramatically changed the policy landscape of Los Angeles County's largest economic engine.

Under the year-old Clean Air Action Plan, which is projected to slash port-generated pollution 45% by 2012, "green growth" has become a byword at the nation's busiest shipping complex.

The two ports already serve as the gateway for 40% of the goods imported to the United States. But the pressures to grow even more -- and to clean the air -- are prompting the longtime rivals to work together, however uneasily.

A month ago, they approved a joint mandate to replace the area's fleet of 16,800 dirty cargo trucks with new or retrofitted models by 2012. Last week, the two ports approved a cargo fee to raise $1.6 billion to put the cleaner trucks into service.

"These were gigantic achievements," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in an interview. "We're on a road that leads to cleaner ports, more jobs and a model for the world."

Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster was more blunt: "We're no longer going to subsidize cheap goods with the health of our citizens."

But many pivotal questions concerning the ports remain unresolved.

As port authorities begin hammering out details that will determine how clean air programs will be implemented and who will pay for them, some stakeholders remain wary of one another.

Those include shipping companies, terminal operators, big-box stores, homeowners, truck drivers and health advocates. Environmentalists, organized labor and lawmakers are also part of the mix.

The uncertainty could sink long-delayed port expansion projects, including on-dock rail service for one of the largest terminal operators; a higher, stronger suspension bridge to replace the aging Gerald Desmond Bridge; and additional container storage and wharf work at the YTI Container Terminal.

The business community is pushing hard for growth and jobs. Environmentalists are demanding mitigation for the negative health effects of growth.

Independent contract truckers, backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, are demanding that trucking firms buy and maintain the new trucks, and hire them as drivers. Trucking companies are threatening to sue if forced to employ their contract drivers.

Then there is the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, a group of environmental and labor groups that has been referred to as "Teamsters and Turtles: Together at last!"

Terminal operators are concerned about a recent coalition letter co-signed by Adrian Martinez, project attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Ron Carver, deputy director of the Teamsters' port division.

"Unless we are assured that your plans include reasonable proposals for mitigating the environmental harm of your existing facility, let alone your proposed expansion," the letter warned, "we cannot see how we could let the process continue without a challenge."

By "process," Martinez meant the government approvals the terminal operators would need to expand.

Some port business owners described the letter as a "shakedown." Frank N. Pisano, vice president of the TraPac Terminal, called it "threatening."

Martinez rejects the assertions. "As in any campaign that is nearing its end," he said, "things are getting nasty out there."

Villaraigosa, however, compared the squabbling with "the growing pains that come with change."

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/template.JSP_INCLUDE_PAGE/page.scmp_jsp_include_page/?jsp=searchresult_article&pageno=1&keyword=pollution&s=idx_Search&x=12&y=23