Most recyclable plastics are categorized and labeled according to the kind of plastic they contain. The labels run from 1 to 7 and can typically be found within the chasing-arrow recycling triangle on the bottom of a given piece of recyclable plastic. The Greenpeace report, conducted from October 2019 to January 2020, claims that only plastics labeled #1 or #2 can be legitimately labeled “recyclable” in the United States today.

Let’s break down these two categories. Plastics labeled #1 contain Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Common products include water bottles, soda bottles, and peanut butter jars. Plastics labeled #2 contain High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Common products include milk jugs, five-gallon buckets, shampoo bottles, and laundry detergent containers. These plastics are recycled into new plastic bottles or containers or are converted into textiles or insulation. 

The United States used to ship plastics labeled #3 through #7 to China to be processed and recycled. In March 2018, the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection raised its standards for the quality of recycled materials that China would purchase, reducing permissible contamination levels from 3% to 0.5%. Since then recycling plants in the United States have struggled to process these plastics on their own.

Plastics labeled #3 through #7 are “hard plastics” and are considered to have “negligible-to-negative value.” This means that they have a low reprocessing capacity and are, therefore, unlikely to be recycled into new products. Recycling plants pay to have these plastics picked up and processed elsewhere, which usually means incineration or a trip to the landfill.

Greenpeace has asked companies that produce products with plastic labels #3 through #7 to remove recyclable language from their labels. It has also promised to file a Federal Trade Commission complaint against them for mislabeling if these companies don’t comply. Some of these companies include Target, Walmart, Procter & Gamble, and SC Johnson.

Common products that carry labels #3 through #7 break down as follows:

Plastic #3: vinyl; tubing and pipe; siding; auto product bottles

Plastic #4: laundry baskets; bread bags; squeeze bottles; plastic film

Plastic #5: yogurt containers; amber-colored pill bottles; coffee cup lids; straws; kitty litter buckets; plastic cutlery

Plastic #6: styrofoam cups; solo cups; egg cartons; to-go containers; plastic cutlery

Plastic #7: toys; sippy cups; CDs and DVDs; lenses

For more information on how to decode recycling symbols, click here.

What can you do?

Here are ten action items you can take:

1. Check purchases closely: Try to buy only plastics with #1 or #2 labels.
2. Take stock of how much plastic in your house is or is not likely to be recycled after you sort it into the recycling bin.
3. Bring your own grocery bag, or choose paper bags over plastic.
4. Choose meat products wrapped in paper by your grocery store butcher over meat products packaged in plastic.
5. Clean your refrigerator storage bins so you can avoid plastic produce bags at the grocery store and store produce neatly at home.
6. Choose items in aluminum or glass packaging over plastic packaging: Both aluminum and glass are commonly recycled by waste programs throughout the country.
7. Pass on plastic silverware, straws, trays, and coffee cup lids.
8. Opt for glass tupperware over plastic baggies.
9. Educate residents about which plastics are actually recyclable in the United States.
10. Encourage residents to download the Remyndr app to receive notifications and updates regarding the recycling pickup schedule in their neighborhoods.

For more information on how China’s recycling decision has impacted recycling in Massachusetts, read our article from March 2019.

Sources:

“Circular Claims Fall Flat: Comprehensive U.S. Survey of Plastics Recyclability,” Greenpeace, Inc., 2020.

Dimugno, Laura, “Recycling symbols decoded,” Mother Nature Network, March 4, 2013.

Vartan, Starre, “Most plastics in our recycling bins aren’t getting recycled, new report finds,” Mother Nature Network, February 24, 2020.

Over the past two years, we’ve written periodically on the Paris Climate Accord — namely, what it is and the United States’ withdrawal from it. But what are states doing to uphold America’s commitments under the Paris Climate Accord? One course of action has been the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

What is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first market-based program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gases. They were pretty straightforward with the name. Started in 2009, RGGI specifically targets CO2 emissions from the power sector.

Which states participate in RGGI?

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. New Jersey was an original RGGI member. Governor Chris Christie decided to withdraw the state in 2011.

RGGI is set to expand: New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy will return the state to the RGGI as of January 1, 2020. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf began the process to join RGGI on October 3, 2019, and the process is expected to be completed within two years. 

Pennsylvania’s membership is significant, given that it’s the United States’ No. 2 gas producer and No. 3 coal producer and that it’s “electricity market is larger than most of the other northeastern states combined” (Inside Climate News).

What impact has the RGGI had? 

The nine RGGI states have reduced CO2 emissions by 47% over the past decade. That’s 90% faster than the rest of the nation, according to a study by clean energy nonprofit Acadia Center. Moreover, “economic growth in the RGGI states has outpaced the rest of the country by 31%” (Acadia Center). How ‘bout that?

What comes next?

To build on the RGGI, twelve northeastern states will try to finalize plans in early 2020 to launch the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), which will tackle carbon emissions from cars and trucks.

The TCI will auction pollution allowances to fuel suppliers, and each year the cap on the number of allowances will decline. The proceeds from the auctions will be “invested in electric vehicle infrastructure, mass transit, and other improvements designed to curb carbon emissions” (Inside Climate News).

The TCI has bipartisan support and will be chaired by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker.

Sources:

“The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” RGGI, Inc., 2019.

“The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Ten Years in Review,” Acadia Center, September 17, 2019.

Lavelle, Marianne, “A Major Fossil Fuel State Is Joining RGGI, the Northeast’s Carbon Market,” Inside Climate News, October 3, 2019.

Lavelle, Marianne, “States Vowed to Uphold America’s Climate Pledge. Are They Succeeding?” Inside Climate News, December 24, 2019.

Read our 3-Piece Primer to the Paris Agreement here.

The 2015 Paris Agreement, designed to hold nations accountable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is comprised of 197 countries. The United States is the only country to withdraw from the pact. Despite its formal notice, the withdrawal process will take a full year to complete.

The signatories of the scientific report come from 150 countries. Published by BioScience, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the report declares an “unequivocal” climate emergency, writing that climate change is “closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle” in affluent countries.

Despite its withdrawal, the United States remains on track to meet its Paris Agreement commitments, thanks to state and corporate efforts to meet the goals outlined in the accord. Yet what’s lost is the United States’ ability to nudge other countries to fulfill their national pledges.

Scientists argue that serious transformations are needed in how “our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.” The report provides vital signs to assist policymakers, the private sector, and the public in their decision-making toward a sustainable future.

The year-long withdrawal process from the Paris Agreement will be complete on November 4, 2020, one day after the 2020 presidential election. If a future administration chooses to rejoin the Paris Agreement, it may do so after a one-month waiting period.

Sources:

Hersher, Rebecca, “U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement,” NPR, November 4, 2019.

Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Barnard, Phoebe; Moomaw, William R., “World Scientists’ of a Climate Emergency,” BioScience, November 5, 2019.

The strikes were designed to protest business and government inaction on the climate crisis. Occurring on September 20 and 27, the strikes bookended the UN Climate Action Summit, at which leaders from the international community gathered to discuss the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The UN Climate Action Summit yielded mixed results. The United States was silent. China made no promises of stronger climate action. Yet 65 countries committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, a number of asset fund managers said they will strive toward a net-zero portfolio of investments by 2050, and dozens of businesses committed to the Paris Agreement targets.

Thunberg, who spoke at the UN summit, is the 16-year-old who has become the face of the youth movement. Since August 2018 she’s skipped school on Fridays to protest inaction on climate change outside the Swedish Parliament. Thirteen months later, thousands of young climate activists do the same as part of the Fridays for Future movement.

Did you or someone you know participate the Global Climate Strikes? Share your experience with us in the comments section.

Sources:

Barclay, Eliza and Resnick, Brian, “How big was the global climate strike? 4 million people, activists estimate.” Vox, September 22, 2019.
Irfan, Umair, “Greta Thunberg is leading kids and adults from 150 countries in a massive Friday climate strike,” Vox, September 20, 2019.
Sengupta, Somini and Friedman, Lisa, “At U.N. Climate Summit, Few Commitments and U.S. Silence,” The New York Times, September 24, 2019.

In October 2018 officials tested the tap water and found elevated levels of lead. They distributed faucet filters — the same kind that were used in Flint, Michigan, where a similar clean water crisis has been ongoing since 2014. These filters were meant to remove the lead that leached into the tap water from lead service pipes. 

Two weeks ago new tests found that some of the filters failed to remove the lead. Just like Flint, Newark was forced to distribute water bottles. Just like Flint, last week saw New Jerseyans in lines a hundred people deep, waiting to receive bottled water. Newark has thousands more lead service lines than Flint, and most of these service lines run under private property.

On Monday, August 26, Newark officials announced a $120 million plan to replace 18,000 lead service pipes in the next 24 to 30 months. According to Mayor Ras Baraka, city officials initially estimated that this plan would take a decade to complete. City and county officials are working to approve the financing, after which contractors will present bids to the city.

Since most of the lead service lines are laid under private property, the pipe replacement project presents some tricky obstacles. City officials cannot unilaterally replace the pipes without property owners’ consent. Yet Mayor Baraka said that he hopes to work with legislators to create a new law or ordinance that would allow city contractors to replace lead service lines on private property without permission.

Approximately 800 of Newark’s 18,000 lead service lines have been replaced in 2019.

Do you have an idea on how city and municipal officials can work together to help Newark fix the water crisis? Get in touch with us at hello@remyndr.org or leave a comment.

Corasaniti, Nick, “Newark Water Crisis: Racing to Replace Lead Pipes in Under 3 Years,” The New York Times, August 26, 2019.

What are the 10 priority actions?

1. Meet and strengthen U.S. commitments under the Paris agreement.

   The U.S. must aggressively reduce emissions in order to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels. It must also work with international leaders to develop and support multilateral, binding commitments to do the same.

2. Transition rapidly away from the use of coal, oil and natural gas to clean, safe, and renewable energy and energy efficiency.

   The U.S. put a price on carbon and phase out subsidies for fossil fuels in exchange for financing the technology and infrastructure needed to transition to zero carbon emissions.

3. Emphasize active transportation in the transition to zero-carbon transportation systems.

   Walking, bicycling, and public transit reduce rates of injuries and non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and osteoporosis.

4. Promote healthy, sustainable and resilient farms and food systems, forests, and natural lands.

   In order to safeguard our food supply and our safety in the face of climate change, we must develop and encourage practices that “reduce food waste, conserve and regenerate soil, conserve and protect water, sustain fisheries, conserve productive agricultural land from urban sprawl, and protect those who grow our food.”

5. Ensure that everyone in the U.S. has access to safe and affordable drinking water and a sustainable water supply.

   We need water to live. Therefore, there should be regulations to prevent water contamination, along with investment in “programs for water conservation, water resources management, infrastructure maintenance, and protection from flooding or salt-water inundation.”

6. Invest in policies that support a just transition for workers and communities adversely impacted by climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

   Green jobs builds the economic well-being of the community and improves public health. The impact on workers and communities affected by economic loss due to climate change and climate policy should be assessed and alleviated.

7. Engage the health sector voice in the call for climate action.

   Health sector leadership in climate communications can rally public support for meaningful action. Local and national campaigns should be implemented in order to educate the public on the health risks of climate change and the health benefits of climate action.

8. Incorporate climate solutions into all health care and public health systems.

   Climate-smart health care, facility resilience, and the decarbonization of the health care supply chain will protect and promote the health of hospitals and communities.

9. Build resilient communities in the face of climate change.

   Engage communities most affected by climate change and empower them in the decision-making process on climate action.

10. Invest in climate and health.

    Support local and state health departments and resilient hospital infrastructures. Fund “local, state, and national climate-health risk assessments, expanded disease surveillance systems, early warning systems, and research on climate and health. Make all data publicly available.”

Sign for your organization here.

What can your community do to take climate action? Let us know in the comments section.

Sources: 

Earls, Maya, “Major Medical Groups Release Call to Action on Climate Change,” Scientific American, June 25, 2019. 

“U.S. Call to Action on Climate, Health, and Equity: A Policy Action Agenda, 2019,” Climate Health Action, June 24, 2019. 

PFAS chemicals are used to produce stain- and waterproof clothing and nonstick cookware. As they do not break down over time, they accumulate in the environment. The NJDEP order claims, “They can harm fetuses and newborns, and have been associated with kidney and testicular cancer, autoimmune illnesses and decreased responses to vaccines.”

PFOA and PFOS are two chemicals in the PFAS chemical family. On April 1, 2019, NJDEP issued a proposed rule that sought to list the two chemicals as “hazardous substances” under the Spill Act. A determination has not yet been made.

NJDEP claims that 3M knew these two chemicals were “harmful to people and the environment, including based on its own studies from as early as the 1970s.” While the Spill Act allows NJDEP to request information on discharged pollutants, Donald J. Camerson, principal at Bressler, Amery & Ross, wrote on behalf of 3M that “useful products supplied by 3M are not ‘pollutants.’” Moreover, since PFOA and PFOS chemicals are not yet hazardous substances under the Spill Act, 3M says that the directive is “fundamentally flawed” and “premature.”

Chemours and DuPont filed a joint response, in which they claim that the NJDEP order is “not just unprecedented but untenable.” They argue that New Jersey environmental laws are meant to be applied to specific discharge locations rather than statewide. Also they argue that the order fails to establish a “causal nexus between a given discharge or contamination and the responsible party,” which they say defies New Jersey law.

Meanwhile, Solvay claims that the NJDEP order is “unprecedented in scope and devoid of meaningful or reasonable substantiation.” It declined to repay the $3.1 million that New Jersey spent for a cleanup of PFAS chemicals near its West Deptford facility, yet it acknowledged the need to investigate contamination near said facility.

While the four companies refuse to pay, they have all agreed to “work with” NJDEP in regards to contamination in and around their facilities. Yet in case the companies refuse to pay or are deliberately slow to act, the state maintains the right to charge them up to three times the amount of money spent in its statewide cleanup efforts.

Sources:

“3M, DuPont Refuse to Pay for New Jersey Chemical Cleanup,” Bloomberg, 2019.
“Companies refuse to pay clean-up costs mandated by New Jersey directive,” ChemicalWatch, 2019.
“Spill Compensation and Control Act,” State of New Jersey, 2019.
“Statewide PFAS Directive, Information Request and Notice to Insurers,” State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2019.

What is it?

The Green New Deal is the name of House Resolution 109, which calls the federal government to take broad action against climate change.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the resolution to the House of Representatives on February 7, 2019. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Cory Booker (NJ) both support it.

What’s in it?

These are the Green New Deal goals:

• “To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions though a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.”
  
• “To create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
• “To invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
• “To secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment.”
• “To promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’).”

What is the timeline, and how will these goals be accomplished?

The Green New Deal goals are to be accomplished “through a 10-year national mobilization.” The mobilization requires the following goals and projects:

• “Building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies.”
• “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including: (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible; (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water; (iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change.”
• “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including: (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and (ii) by deploying new capacity.”
• “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity.”
• “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
• “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”
• “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including: (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”
• “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail.”
• “Mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies.”
• “Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation.”
• “Restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency.”
• “Cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites.”
• “Identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them.”
• “Promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal.”

How can the United States achieve all of this?

The resolution details a series of broader goals and projects to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization:

• “Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”
• “Ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through (i) existing laws; (ii) new policies and programs; and (iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected.”
• “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.”
• “Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries.”
• “Directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”
• “Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level.”
• “Ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”
• “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
• “Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment.”
• “Strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”
• “Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections (i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and (ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”
• “Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”
• “Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples.”
• “Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.”
• “Providing all people of the United States with (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

What’s next?

If the resolution passes the House, it still requires legislation to have the force of law. Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s office has said that a formal legislative proposal is forthcoming.

Source:

H.Res.109 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal, 116th Congress (2019-2020), February 07, 2019.

The EPA inspects industrial sites for pollution violations and compliance with environmental law. The inspection of industrial sites, which include factories, plants, and refineries that deal with chemicals, oil, power, and water treatment, is meant to detect violations that endanger the public health. The shutdown has halted these inspections, as the EPA has furloughed most of its nearly 600 pollution inspectors and compliance monitors.

The obvious risk is the accidental or purposeful emission of hazardous pollutants without detection. This type of pollution can have devastating effects on municipal communities. Think the Porter Ranch gas leak in California. Think Erin Brockovich. It will not be easy to make up these inspections once the shutdown comes to an end.

According to EPA records, pollution inspectors and compliance workers average around 225 inspections per week. While the shutdown is set to cross the three-week mark on Saturday, January 12, according to the New York Times, EPA pollution inspections had stopped by New Year’s Eve. Therefore, as of this writing, nearly 450 inspections have not been conducted.

Let’s break it down on the local level:

For the 2017 fiscal year, in EPA Region 1, which serves Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the EPA reports an estimated 711,000 pounds of “pollution reduced, treated or eliminated,” and an estimated 7 pounds of “hazardous waste treated, minimized, or properly disposed of.” It reports an estimated 3,816,000 cubic yards of “contaminated soil/debris to be cleaned up,” and an estimated 890,000 cubic yards of “contaminated water/aquifer to be cleaned up.”

For the 2017 fiscal year, in EPA Region 2, which serves New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the EPA reports an estimated 109,635,000 pounds of “pollution reduced, treated or eliminated,” and an estimated 243,333,000 pounds of “hazardous waste treated, minimized, or properly disposed of.” It reports an estimated 6,036,000 cubic yards of “contaminated soil/debris to be cleaned up,” and an estimated 119,476,000 cubic yards of “contaminated water/aquifer to be cleaned up.”

EPA inspections break down into three general categories: First, analysts review emissions reports from industrial companies. If legal violations are found, inspectors go on-site to ensure compliance with environmental law. Second, pollution inspectors conduct in-person, on-site inspections over a period of two to three weeks. Third, compliance workers perform unannounced inspections.

Once the government is up and running again, EPA officials must find a way either to reschedule the inspections that were obstructed by the shutdown or to resume their normal schedule. Either way, there is no one to monitor and detect potential emissions violations for the time being.

Happy New Year.

Sources:

“Enforcement Annual Results for Fiscal Year 2017, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Coral Davenport, “Shutdown Means E.P.A. Pollution Inspectors Aren’t on the Job,” The New York Times, Jan. 9, 2019.

The ban is ambitious. One amendment orders cigarette companies to reduce the plastic in cigarette filters by 50% by 2025 and by 80% by 2030. Another calls for 90% of all plastic drinks bottles to be recycled by 2025. Banned items were chosen for their ocean-polluting ubiquity and for their readily available alternatives. Items without alternatives will still be reduced by 25% in each country by 2025. The UK will also need to incorporate the new proposal into national law before the Brexit transition is complete. (BBC News)

The European Commission, which proposed the ban in response to a surge in public support, voted in favor 571-53. This follows a global trend to reduce the use of single-use plastics. In July, Remyndr wrote about The Walt Disney Company’s decision to eliminate single-use plastic straws and stirrers at all of its locations across the globe. That followed Seattle’s decision to ban drinking straws and Starbuck’s decision to remove single-use plastic straws by 2020.

We’ve reached a tipping point when it comes to our consumption and disposal of plastics. Straws may sound like small potatoes compared to hurricanes and wildfires, but even small tweaks have a cumulative impact on planet’s climate change trajectory. Think of a small change you’ve made in your life and the impact it’s had since the time you made the decision.

It’s too soon to realize the effect of the growing global consensus to eliminate single-use plastics, but we imagine that it can only be restorative. Fewer sea turtles with plastic straws caught in their noses. Fewer whales with 80 plastic bags in their guts. In a word, more fish than plastic in the ocean.

Source:

“Single-use plastics ban approved by European Parliament,” BBC News, 2018. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45965605