Port-Air-Emissions Evidence Board Adviser

The mandate

The committee repeatedly asks whether inventory reductions arise from cleaner equipment and changed operations or from vessel mix, cargo volume, model assumptions and activity shifted beyond the boundary. Shore-power connection rates, tug replacements, terminal electrification and truck programmes are reported separately, while community corridors experience combined exposure. Directors need independent challenge on source, attribution, persistence and location without commissioning a new emissions inventory or making health claims.

Five environment committee sessions provide the board rhythm; four field reviews follow a terminal, vessel or community corridor from activity source to claimed effect. Around those events, the adviser has three days each month to inspect evidence, challenge a programme thesis and close the chair’s follow-up. A material public reduction claim must receive written challenge within two US business days. Authorised specialists and management remain responsible for measurement, verification, disclosure, health and operations.

The annual inventory and capital plan are the two board products under review, both contained within ten months. Publication delay or a community concern still open on the closing date does not extend the mandate. Renewal requires proof that internal teams can maintain the challenge, a newly defined standing question, another board resolution and refreshed conflicts. Remaining days cannot be converted into emissions verification or expert testimony.

The adviser holds no line authority and carries no executive responsibility for emissions calculation, equipment, vessel operation, terminal activity, truck rules, health assessment, capital, grant or disclosure. Management operates programmes and qualified experts produce inventories; directors govern. The adviser may challenge causal evidence and community relevance but cannot verify tonnes, certify technology or promise a health outcome.

Work for carriers, terminals, equipment makers, energy providers, truck fleets, model vendors, environmental groups, grant applicants or litigation parties must be disclosed. A relevant interest requires recusal from the complete programme claim. Compensation cannot depend on reported reduction, grant, technology selection, disclosure or later verification, and paid endorsements are prohibited.

Why the board wants this voice

Programme owners report progress, inventory experts apply accepted methods and community representatives describe lived conditions, but no participant is neutral across all three. The board needs an operator who can trace claims into vessel, terminal and corridor practice. Independent challenge can make limitations visible without replacing environmental science or community voice.

What you will own

• Press management to state source, boundary, baseline, activity, model, physical mechanism, location and persistence for each claim.
• Test shore-power, harbour-craft, terminal-equipment, drayage and rail changes against observed operating adoption.
• Challenge reductions driven mainly by cargo volume, vessel mix, boundary shift, assumed utilisation or unverified availability.
• Probe whether corridor and time-of-day exposure aligns with aggregate inventory and affected community experience.
• Review four programmes and identify missing source, attribution, persistence, maintenance and operating-condition evidence.
• Shape board conditions for claim approval, limitation disclosure, periodic observation and independent technical verification.
• Give the chair a claim casebook, evidence gaps, conflict register and questions for annual capital allocation.

Candidate qualifications

• Governed port decarbonisation or air-quality programmes across vessel, terminal, harbour craft and landside operations.
• Has challenged a reported reduction after physical adoption, utilisation or boundary evidence contradicted the model.
• Understands shore power, cargo equipment, drayage, rail and harbour-craft operating constraints at board level.
• Can distinguish operating evidence from inventory verification, health assessment and public disclosure authority.
• Worked credibly with communities, operators and technical specialists without claiming to represent any party.
• Maintained independence from carriers, terminals, equipment vendors, model providers, grant recipients and retained consultants.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend five Long Beach sessions and complete four terminal, vessel or corridor reviews.
• Will disclose carrier, terminal, truck, equipment, energy, model and advocacy relationships before access.
• Brings physical port-emission implementation evidence; ESG reporting or inventory modelling alone is insufficient.
• Accepts no verification, health, operating, grant, capital, disclosure or board-voting authority.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe an emissions claim that weakened after you tested physical operating adoption.
2. 49 words maximum. Which carrier, terminal, vendor or community relationship could require your recusal?
3. 49 words maximum. What evidence distinguishes shore-power availability from actual persistent use?