Palin opposes cleaner ports fee in California

Articles — By forcechange on September 17, 2008 5:00 am

Politicians opposed to environmental regulations often argue that “business” and the “economy” are put too much at risk to permit legislation.  Despite the arguments that cleaning up the environment, in of itself, could become the next big growth industry, many of these politicians continue to have a knee jerk opposition to all environmental laws. 

At this point it is almost old hat to mention this, but Sarah Palin is clearly one of those politicians.  In a letter sent to Gov. Schwarzenegger last month, in her capacity as Alaska Governor, Palin requested that Schwarzenegger veto the CA bill recently passed that would impose a $60 fee on large cargo containers moving through the ports of LA, Long Beach and Oakland.  These three ports handle more than 40% of the entire country’s goods and are a massive source of pollution in the state.  In fact, the two ports of LA and Long Beach account for the single biggest source of air pollution in the entire region, also creating a dramatically higher risk of cancer in local populations. 

The proposed fees are intended to raise $400 million each year that would be put towards decreasing some of this pollution, through cleaner burning trucks and trains, as well as creating more efficient container off- and on-loading systems. 

Palin argues that because Alaska is dependent on California ports for much of its goods (since they are so remotely located), that these fees would disproportionately harm her state.  Of course, protecting her state’s economy is a legitimate concern, but given the massive environmental impact being imposed on the environment and communities surrounding the California ports, a relatively modest fee on these huge shipping containers seems exceedingly reasonable. 

A bigger concern to be taken from Palin’s position is that she may just be hostile to any environmental regulations that arguably have a “financial” impact.  Not only does this ignore the fact that it is oftentimes not a zero-sum game, but it also shows that she may just be reflexively against all environmental regulations.  If she is opposed to a reasonable fee imposed on discreet port pollution, it is hard to imagine her ever supporting a comprehensive tax on all carbon emissions.  This is not a good sign, to say the least. 

Photo credit.