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.

In the wake of China’s 2017 ban on the import of mixed paper and mixed plastic, Waste Management and other large waste haulers looked to poor countries as an export alternative. Over the last two years it became clear that the receiving countries could not process the volume of trash exported by the United States. Waste mismanagement led to environmental and social harm. 

Waste Management now sells 77% of its recyclable materials to domestic markets. In an August press release, WM said, “The company is working to help establish responsible domestic markets for recycling and beneficial use of these materials.” The company has further stated that “where there is no market, we are disposing of this material responsibly.”

This seems to be the start of a growing global trend, as Australia’s Prime Minister has said the country should be responsible for its own waste and as the Dutch State Secretary has called for plastic waste exports to stop. 

What do you think about the ban of plastic waste exports? Let us know in the comments!

Sources:

“The Largest Trash Collectors in the U.S. Have Stopped Shipping Waste to Poor Countries,” Good News Network, Oct. 21, 2019.

“U.S. Waste & Recycling Companies Positions on Plastic Waste Exports,” The Last Beach Cleanup, accessed Oct. 22, 2019.

Wheeler, Perry, “Waste Management, Casella announce halt to plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management,” Green Peace, Oct. 16, 2019.

Doran, Matthew and Macmillan, Jade, “Ban on recyclable waste exports looms as political leaders commit to a phase out,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Aug. 9, 2019.

“Plastic waste export should be stopped,” Weekly News Review, June 17, 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.

According to David Abel at the Boston Globe, “Some chemicals were found at levels four times higher than New Hampshire’s new standards for safe drinking water.” For years water from Spring Hill Farm Dairy has been sold at Whole Foods, CVS, Stop & Shop, Market Basket, Roche Brothers, and elsewhere. It is also sold by Cumberland Farms and Garelick Farms.

Once New Hampshire state health officials alerted their analogs in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health put out a “consumption advisory.” While health officials did not require stores to warn customers or to recall the water, some stores have done so voluntarily.

Nancy Sterling, spokeswoman for Spring Hill Farm Dairy, defended the company’s decision to sell the water, citing that the chemical levels in the water were within federal guidelines. Yet former EPA scientist and current director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in New England, Kyla Bennett, disagrees: “People think that if a product is on the shelves, it’s safe. That is simply not true.” 

Data from the state Department of Environmental Protection shows that less than half of Massachusetts’ municipalities have had their drinking water tested for PFAS chemicals. In Massachusetts, there are 181 state-permitted bottled water companies. Only three test for PFAS chemicals. While bottled water has fewer testing requirements than public water supplies, more can and should be done to test for and disclose PFAS chemical contents.

Source:

Abel, David, “Tainted bottled water is being sold at supermarkets throughout New England,” The Boston Globe, July 29, 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.

PFAS are used to produce stain- and waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware. Sometimes called “forever chemicals,” PFAS do not break down over time; rather, they accumulate in the environment. The state claims, “They can harm fetuses and newborns, and have been associated with kidney and testicular cancer, auto-immune illnesses and decreased responses to vaccines.” All good things.

The cost of contamination cleanup could rise to hundreds of millions of dollars. If the five companies cited refuse to comply or are deliberately slow to act, the state could charge them three times the amount of money spent in the cleanup. Chemours has said that it has decided to reduce air and water PFAS discharge by at least 99 percent, and Solvay has said that it has begun “remediation efforts” at its West Deptford, New Jersey facility. As of this writing, 3M, Dow DuPont, and Dupont have not commented.

Catherine McCabe, the New Jersey environmental protection commissioner, recommends that consumers avoid products that use PFAS. While the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) cites brands such as Gore-Tex, Scotchgard, Stainmaster, Teflon, and Tyvek, McCabe acknowledges that it is hard to know whether PFAS are present in a particular item of clothing or cookware. However, she says that the DEP will determine whether the plans proposed by the five companies are sufficient to address the problem.

To learn more about PFAS, click on these links:

EPA – Basic Information on PFAS
EPA – PFAS Infographic
NJ DEP – Emerging Contaminants
CDC – PFAS and Your Health
The Intercept – Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit

Source:
Parry, Wayne, “New Jersey orders cleanup of clothing, cookware chemicals,” The Washington Post, March 25, 2019.