By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

Prop 4 proposes issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects. Additionally, 40% of the bond revenue would be used to fund activities that benefit communities with lower incomes or that are affected by environmental changes or disasters.

$3.8 billion would help pay to improve drinking water systems and prepare for droughts and floods. Another $1.5 billion would go to programs focused on wildfire preparedness and $1.2 billion would go to programs combating the rise of the sea level. The remaining funds would be divided up.

Supporters of the proposition argue that the threat climate change brings to the state is an immediate one. Issues like wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat call for funding to be directed towards countering the effects of climate change. Several environmental groups are backing the measure as well.

Supporters say urgency to push for the proposition increased even more when Gov. Gavin Newsom scaled back the “California Climate Commitment,” which originally was a $54.3 billion spending package. In the most recent budget, it was cut to $44.6 billion.

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, State Director of the California Environmental Defense Fund, is on record saying, “We need to be not only helping communities adapt to climate change right now, but we also need to be reducing our climate pollution. This is not a problem that can wait until it’s convenient to fund in the budget.”

Ariana Rickard, public policy and funding program manager for Sonoma Land Trust, added, “Every Californian has felt the impact of the climate crisis, whether it is wildfires, extreme heat, flooding, sea level rise. I feel like this will resonate with voters who want to protect themselves and their communities.”

The bond measure would also require the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to publish a list of programs and projects on the agency’s website for the public, increasing transparency and accountability with the public. The measure would require the report to list the project’s location, objective, status, anticipated outcomes, total cost, amount of bond funding, and any matching funds.

Opponents argue that using bonds to pay for what they call “unproven technologies” is not the most prudent way to approach the issues. They believe the state should pay for projects like this without taking on more debt.

Governments, corporations and municipalities issue bonds when they need capital. An investor who buys a government bond is lending the government money. If an investor buys a corporate bond, the investor is lending the corporation money. Like a loan, a bond pays interest periodically and repays the principal at a stated time, known as maturity. Taxpayers eventually are burdened with paying for the bonds the Government issues.

Howard Jarvis of the Taxpayers Association is on the record stating that “These bonds will be paid by people decades from now that didn’t even get to vote for their authorization.”

A “yes” vote supports the state issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.

A “no” vote opposes the state issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Magaly Muñoz

The proposed widening of the turning basin at the Port of Oakland is intended to accommodate 1,300-foot “megaships” carrying shipping containers and cargo into the harbor instead of the already large 1,300-foot ships that are currently coming in daily to the Port.

The Port claims that the widening will decrease in-harbor transit time, transit emissions, and transportation costs, while increasing safety.

“It’s a matter of economics,” Port of Oakland Maritime Director John Driscoll said in a statement in 2019. “By loading more cargo on bigger ships, the shipping lines can actually reduce the number of vessels they deploy.”

However, legal organizations argue activity from the Port emissions represent some of the largest share of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in the west part of the city, specifically from drayage trucks, cargo handling equipment, ships and more.

Increased traffic congestion from more trucks coming and going to load more cargo will also add to the pollution breathed in by people in neighborhoods surrounded by major interstate highways.

EarthJustice and concerned residents are urging the Port to prioritize zero-emission equipment over increasing truck traffic that is harming the local environment and residents.

“Our position is not that the Port shouldn’t operate as a business, but that it shouldn’t do that at the expense of the West Oakland community, particularly when it comes to public health and air quality concerns, and this sort of project, expanding the turning basin, seems like it will,” EarthJustice attorneys said.

Trending

Some Hiking Trails Closed to Dogs Until Fall Due to Coyote Pupping Season

According to California law, drayage trucks at ports began implementing zero-emission technology this year, with full implementation by 2035.

The Port of Oakland has acquired several battery electric trucks and are working toward cleaner equipment, but officials acknowledge that it will take time and resources.

Less than 10 miles from the Port, another project, the addition of new terminals at the Oakland International Airport, is causing distress to activists and workers.

An estimated 174 people per 10,000 living directly around the airport visited the emergency department for asthma, according to CalEnviroScreen.

Emissions from passenger flights at OAK are equivalent to the yearly emissions from 1,200,000 cars, according to Airport Tracker.

Advocates argue that airlines are failing to meet climate goals, meaning expansions should come to a halt until technological solutions are available for greener air traffic at current demand.

Among the most negatively impacted people from the airport are those working there day and night.

Juana, a cabin cleaner at OAK, told The Post that she contracted asthma soon after starting her job, and due to low wages and no health insurance, she cannot pay for her needed medication.

“Working there is a negative exposure to your life, to your health, to everything,” Juana said.

As a cabin cleaner, she and three other workers have to sanitize and clean the inside of the airplane cabins as soon as passengers deboard the aircraft. The work can be back-breaking and often they are exposed directly to the pollution of the plane since they are made to stand in the terminal waiting for the craft to arrive.

Juana explained that her employer does not give workers ample time off to rest and recover from the harmful effects of working at the airport. She said when people brought concerns about the conditions, they were met with hostility and told to walk out if they didn’t like being there.

Not many have walked out, Juana admitted.

Juana said the airport and third-party companies, like her employer, are aware that people in the community are desperate for jobs and are essentially exploiting them with difficult work and little pay.

She is worried that the terminal expansion will double the work for her and her colleagues, with no increase in pay, and more exposure to the troubling health conditions the job leaves people with. Additionally, since OAK is not required to offer health insurance to workers, their current health problems will only be exacerbated with time.

Collaboration with the Port

Environmental justice activists agree that while all their needs have not been met, and there is a long way to go before they do, they do have the ear of some Port Commissioners.

Michael Colbruno, a Board member since 2013, considers himself an environmentalist, which activists say is not quite an environmental justice advocate, but close enough.

Colbruno has opened up the dialogue and access to the decision makers by organizing an informal meeting he conducts to gather community input on Port projects.

These meetings have resulted in more funding from grants, better awareness of what environmental concerns might arise from future agenda items, and the Port’s participation in the Green Marine Program. The program helps its participants improve their environmental performance beyond regulations and targets key environmental issues related to biodiversity protection and air, water, and soil quality.

Colbruno acknowledged that there are problems with some of the projects the Port is working on, but the city has to find a way to keep growing so that they do not lose out on economic opportunities.

“The goal, then, is to try to do [projects] as cleanly and sustainably as possible, and to put the pieces in place that make it have the least environmental impact for the community. You can’t have that kind of a project with zero environmental impact. It’s impossible,” Colbruno said.

While activists appreciate the opportunity to talk with Colbruno, they are demanding a long-overdue seat at the Port of Oakland Commissioner table for someone like Gordon, who has dealt with the harsh realities of living in these frontline communities impacted by the polluted environment.

Activists intend to push for more representation from the mayor as more Board seats open up in the coming years.

“I think that’s a valuable thing, having somebody that really understands firsthand experience…someone that has proper expertise,” Fleck said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

On Aug. 19, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill aiming to expand the State’s air-quality monitoring system to include more refineries.

Newsom cited concerns regarding local control and high implementation costs.

State Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) authored Senate Bill (SB) 674, legislation that required real-time air monitoring of nearby petroleum refineries to keep track of sites producing biofuel and other pollutants. The bill would have required communities close to refineries such as Chevron Refinery in Richmond, to get notifications when pollutants were dangerously high, requiring local governments and state agencies to address the poor conditions.

Newsom stated that although the bill had good intentions, the state had no funding to reimburse the refineries for implementing the required systems. The proposed bill obligated refineries to cover the costs of implementing the air monitoring systems, paying various fees over multiple years. However, State officials were unable to secure funding that could help expand programs that monitor air quality in all the refineries.

Oscar Espino-Padron, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, confirmed that two air quality districts in the Bay Area and South Coast Air Quality Management District supported SB 674.

Espino-Padron argued that the air quality districts would be “empowered to implement measures and to exercise their discretion to tailor this monitoring program based on when it’s appropriate in their jurisdictions.”

“It’s really a setback, not only for air quality but also for community safety,” he said.

According to SB 674, a report by the American Lung Association indicated that all 19 refineries in California are located in counties that received failing grades for particulate matter pollution. Environmental groups argued that communities are being deprived of data and information that could help them take proper and timely precautions as well as protect their families from pollution caused by the refineries.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post