Last week the State of California put forward an audacious proposal to regulate emissions from railroads. And you should read it because to us, this the ball game for airport communities.
Their plan is a bit like early marijuana law. As it stands, it cannot take effect without an Executive Order from the Biden Administration. And even if that were to happen, they’d be sued faster than you can spell BNSF. But California, being one of the largest governments on the planet, can also move national policy on its own. Well, almost.
By having the courage to propose this, it dares WA and OR to follow suit–as they have done so many times in the past on environmental and social issues. Time and again history has shown, if the West Coast is aligned, it is likely to change Federal law… as happened with marijuana, various auto standards, and now EVs.
It’s just a railroad in the sky…
Many people are unfamiliar that the FAA was ‘templated’ on what is now the FRA. Following WWII, commercial aviation sprang up almost as fast as the Internet. But unlike the interwebs, the government had to get a ton of Federal code in place fast. So if you compare the two Department of Transportation agencies side by side, the law, the lingo, the organisation, and a major portion of the cultures are the same. Safety and Efficiency. Tight industry/government partnerships.
( It may just be a coincidence, but if you ask an FAA spokesperson why there are no curfews? Their snap answer is often “Do railroads have curfews?” 😀 )
Because the two agencies are so similar, this law would be very easy to ‘template’ onto airports. If it is constitutional for States to set their own regs apart from one DOT agency, they could certainly do it for another. An airline is just “a railroad in the sky.”
OK, but I’d rather sue…
The current buzz concerns the Steve Berman law suit. The appeal for the general public is obvious and we support it. However, there are a few caveats.
First, law suits take years. Second, there’s the awkward fact that the science is nowhere near where it needs to be for regulatory action in several ways. Who says so? The scientists.
And this is a tough one for non-scientists to grapple with. There are an awful lot of things that one can know to be true, but for which there is simply not enough evidence to generate a regulatory standard. Everyone going back to ancient Rome understood the health impacts of lead. But it the painstaking work of Clare Patterson to provide the hard data to make it possible to regulate lead.
A very good question is why it has taken so many decades to even begin doing proper measurements of aviation-related pollution. (Some progress was made this year in Olympia. Specifics coming soon.)
Currently, this law suit is based as much on passion and anecdote as it is hard science. Other than the appearance of punishment there is nothing it might provide which could not be done better by legislation. These are issues that must be addressed by our own electeds.
In short, litigation like this must be seen as a failure of government.
This matters because, even when litigation succeeds, it will still need to be supported by policy changes. You may get one time money to fight ‘smoking’ but you still need government to do the regulating.
In short, you can save a lot of time and a lot of money and whole lot of public health if your government is willing to act.
We support that lawsuit primarily because it may provide the necessary prod to lawmakers to get the scientific data and regulatory authority in place sooner. But lawsuit or no, we will have to take control of the science and the regulation.
But in the meantime, it’s great to see activists working this regulatory angle. First, because it’s strategically brilliant. And second because this is the path to better aviation law. State control. Bottom up. Even the threat of local control would, like a major lawsuit, likely help move the needle–as it did with the auto industry.
Can we change?
The real question is us. Can a State like WA, which is to aviation what MI is to cars, and what WV is to coal, have the same kind of courage as CA?
Sea-Tac got close in the 1970’s with the Sea-Tac Communities Plan. The EPA was young and there were several State bills that came very close to passing. These would have reformed the Port of Seattle, provided ongoing air quality monitoring, revenue sharing, and a better tax levy. If they had passed, our cities would be stronger and we would have the data necessary to create nation-wide regulations.
Ironically, they all died not because of ‘Seattle’, but because of your very own local politicians.
Like today, County and City Council electeds were people who thought that any reform posed an existential threat to the region’s economy. Some fought the Third Runway, but one would be hard pressed to find any politicians after 1980 intent on changing the basics of regulation or revenues. Then, as now, they tried their hardest to look concerned in public, while doing everything possible to promote the industry and leave community problems to someone else. They were wrong, but they were people of their time who could not help thinking that way.
It’s been 45 years, but the lingering memory of ‘Jet City’ keeps us where we’re at as much as the Port or the FAA. Today, can we recognise that, like MI and WV, we haven’t been that one-industry town for a very long time?
In short, can we get out of the 20th Century and make better environmental choices based on how people live now? If not, hopefully all the people suffering near CA airports are watching this story more carefully.
PS: Governor Inslee is not seeking a fourth term. Despite being ‘the environmental candidate’, during his tenure he steadfastly opposed any similar regulations on aviation or marine. It will be interesting to see if the Governor is willing to support this kind of legislation. And if CA were to have the courage to extend their approach to aviation, it would also be interesting to see where the next Governor of WA stands. And in that event, the most interesting thing might be to (finally) get to see how many of our own State and local electeds are also still living in the 20th Century.