It looks like it's been a while since I've posted any updates here, but there are lots of posts on our Chesapeake Bay Trash Trawl site!
As we enter the last month of the year, and I've written half a dozen grant reports and other summaries of the work we've done at Trash Free Maryland, it seems like a good time to share it all with you:
- We passed foam food packaging bans in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. We trained a dozen other organizations on the issue and helped them be effective advocates, demonstrating a broad coalition of support. Together with the DC foam ban we passed in 2014, more than 2.5 million people, and 15,000 businesses, will be using more sustainable and less toxic food packaging in 2016.
- We passed a first-of-its-kind ban on plastic microbeads in face wash, toothpaste, and other personal care products. We worked with leadership in the General Assembly, industry representatives, and the Maryland Department of Environment to enact a ban that includes most synthetic microbeads, keeping these tiny plastic pellets out of the water and out of our seafood.
- We asked DC and Maryland to update their programs for keeping trash out of the Anacostia River, modifying the way they measure their progress so it makes more sense to real people and ensures that the river will one day (soon!) be truly trash-free.
- Our Trash Trawl is the largest study yet of plastic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, collecting more than 75 samples of water, plastic pieces, and fish. Once the data analysis is complete in 2016, we can show how the plastic bag in the tree in front of your house ends up back on your dinner plate, possibly contaminated with chemicals. You can read about it in CityLab and the Baltimore Sun. Or watch NatGeo's video about it right here:
We also worked with local government officials who wanted our input on their policy proposals to reduce litter in their communities, spoke to more than 600 community members and students from elementary school through college, and reached hundreds more through online streaming and videos.
Trash Free Maryland started in 2010 and became a funded organization in 2013; this year we applied to the IRS for our nonprofit status to make it all official.* We've achieved all of that success with a single staff member and a devoted board of directors, but we can't do it alone. With your help and financial gift, we can achieve even more in 2016! Click here to make a secure donation online today. And thank you for all you do for a trash-free Maryland!
* Donations come directly to Trash Free Maryland now, and will be tax deductible retroactively once our 501c3 determination comes through. It's technical and nerdy and you should check with your tax professional for your particular situation.
Showing posts with label dc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dc. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Save the world. Stop recycling everything.
I rarely work on solid waste, but I've gotten some questions about this, and I know enough about it to have some opinions and ideas. So this post is more to lay those out, and less a formal report. No academic citations here!
The Washington Post has been writing about the state of recycling, both in terms of national trends and specifically in DC (perhaps prompted by the departure of Department of Public Works Director Bill Howland?). The articles highlight how the trend toward single-stream recycling has actually lowered the value of the recycled material.
Single-stream recycling is where you dump all your recyclables into one bin, smashing it down so it all fits, and haul it out to the curb where a truck comes and adds it to everybody else's crushed stuff, then schleps it to a factory where machines try to separate it back out. In the process, the glass breaks and shards get stuck in the cardboard, yogurt you didn't totally rinse out of that tub smears onto newspaper, etc. The machines hopefully also catch that clamshell that sure looks like highly recyclable #1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin but is actually non-recyclable #6 polystyrene--because if inspectors find that #6 clamshell in the bale of #1, they'll reject the whole bale.
Ideally we'd all separate our recyclables into different bins, depending on material. I remember as a kid going to the Walmart parking lot and putting recyclables into different igloo-shaped containers, including separate bins for brown, green, and clear glass. I did the same in the Outer Banks, North Carolina, as recently as five years ago. Keeping everything separated meant it was super easy to gather up, melt down, and turn it into new bottles.
For better or worse, local governments decided to make recycling collection curbside, and residents didn't want to have a plethora of bins at home. Over the past 20 years, more municipalities have moved toward single-stream recycling at the behest of their residents. Recycling is an extremely popular public works service, so tax dollars are spent on expanding collection services, even to the point of mandated universal curbside recycling collection. Because everybody gets a recycling bin and weekly pickup, everyone gets to feel good about being an environmentalist! Sounds great, doesn't it?
But there's a pretty big catch that a growing number of municipalities are now recognizing.
As the contents of those big bins gets more contaminated, its monetary value drops significantly. Localities used to make a lot of money by selling their recycled materials on the commodities market; the profits more than offset the costs of collection. But localities aren't making as much money anymore, to the point where cities around the country are spending more on collection than they are getting back in materials sales. Normally, a municipality would just reduce spending when a venture becomes a financial liability. But, politically, they can’t do that with recycling services that remain highly popular with the public. (Ocean City, Maryland, got rid of municipal recycling all together a few years back, sending every piece of residential solid waste to an incinerator. Residents are feeling guilty as they adjust, and groups that hold conferences at the convention center have started hiring private haulers just so they can provide recycling to attendees, lest they look bad.)
Before I started doing this trash advocacy thing full-time, I owned a design and marketing company. One of our clients was a suburban county in Ohio that desperately wanted to raise its recycling rate, from 11 to 15 percent. (One step at a time...) Through phone surveys and focus groups, we learned that the "sometimes-recyclers" felt good when they recycled, even though it was kind of a pain. (Those bins are heavy! And sometimes gross wet stuff leaks out of them!) They felt like they were doing something really good for the planet and for future generations. What elected official wants to take that away?
But these "sometimes-recyclers" also said that they recycle so they don't feel guilty about not doing anything else that's considered environmentally friendly: "It's not like I'm going to buy a Prius, so I recycle." This phenomenon has been found in other "virtuous acts"--people who use reusable bags while grocery shopping may also tend to buy more junk food. Think about similar ways you justify your own bad behavior. (My favorite is Liz Lemon having a cupcake because she planned to go to the gym later.)
The Ohio ad campaign ended up featuring real people saying they recycle because it's "one thing" they can do for a better planet/future/community. The campaign probably did raise the participation rate, but who knows if the quality of the materials is any good or if people traded out another virtuous act to do so.
Summary: Recycling is a popular behavior, so cities push participation. But the tactics that drive participation lead to contamination. There are two major culprits to this contamination: people not knowing what is actually recyclable and glass.
All plastics are not created equal.
Scenario: you have an empty plastic container in the kitchen, flip it over, squint and see the tiny number inside the chasing arrows. (The chasing arrows make you think it's recyclable but that was just a trick by the Society of the Plastics Industry. Fortunately they just changed the symbol to a simple triangle.) Maybe it's a #5 tub. Does your city collect that? Maybe you kept the mailer you got four years ago or you have time to look it up online. (Probably not.)
In DC, you could look at the top of the new recycling cart you got in 2014. (Political maneuvering? Who knows.) Except the lid says you can recycle all plastics, #1-7. That's actually not true. #3 (vinyl), #6 (polystyrene), and #7 (other) definitely shouldn't go in the cart. For the other resins, it usually depends on the shape. Most public works officials will tell you to just put it in even if you aren't sure. The problem with that advice is that you risk ending up with those contaminated--and devalued--bales. Maryland Environmental Services reports that their facilities have a residue rate of less than 10 percent (less than 10 percent of the stuff they get can't be recycled), but that data probably requires more digging.
We learned in Ohio that giving people too much detailed information just confuses them and likely leads them to throw the stuff in the trash. But not enough info may mean an entire bale gets trashed. It's a tough problem.
The glass is half empty.
Glass is heavy, so it costs a lot to collect and transport. But it breaks and gets mixed up, and it has fairly low value on the commodities market. On the other hand, it is infinitely recyclable, and recycled glass is still cheaper to make than new glass. Domestic glass manufacturers would much prefer to have a clean stream of glass they can recycle for new bottles, and the best way to do that is to keep it separate from everything else (and separated by color). This works great in states with bottle bills (beverage container deposits). Glass manufacturers would like to add factories in more states, but they need a good glass supply in the region. A bottle bill could do this, if we're not inclined to go back to separated curbside collection. But then you're going up against beverage companies and distributors that hate any idea that could put obstacles between customers and their 24-pack of Coke Zero.
A Maryland Senate committee held a summer briefing on a proposed bottle bill last week, and I was struck by how many of the opponents defensively insisted, "I recycle a lot! My bin is always overflowing!" I wondered how much of that was empty water bottles.
So what's the answer? There probably is a perfect system that would collect every single piece of packaging that could be reused or recycled into something else. But when we're dealing with the realities of humans, and local budgets, and the scale required to make the whole transportation and logistics system that is recycling work, it's going to take some creative thinking, smart community education, and a lot of cooperation.
Ultimately, we don't want any materials to go to waste; we want people to return as much as possible; we want those materials to net as much revenue as possible; and maybe we can also prevent it from getting loose into the environment as litter. Some of the basics from the existing toolbox could get us close:
- container deposit (get the glass out!)
- bring back a separate cart for paper
- clarify what should go into recycling bins, convey it clearly, and conduct extensive public outreach to make sure people understand
- urge people to buy less packaging overall and urge manufacturers to make packaging that is recyclable (no pouches!)
The Washington Post has been writing about the state of recycling, both in terms of national trends and specifically in DC (perhaps prompted by the departure of Department of Public Works Director Bill Howland?). The articles highlight how the trend toward single-stream recycling has actually lowered the value of the recycled material.
Single-stream recycling is where you dump all your recyclables into one bin, smashing it down so it all fits, and haul it out to the curb where a truck comes and adds it to everybody else's crushed stuff, then schleps it to a factory where machines try to separate it back out. In the process, the glass breaks and shards get stuck in the cardboard, yogurt you didn't totally rinse out of that tub smears onto newspaper, etc. The machines hopefully also catch that clamshell that sure looks like highly recyclable #1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin but is actually non-recyclable #6 polystyrene--because if inspectors find that #6 clamshell in the bale of #1, they'll reject the whole bale.
Ideally we'd all separate our recyclables into different bins, depending on material. I remember as a kid going to the Walmart parking lot and putting recyclables into different igloo-shaped containers, including separate bins for brown, green, and clear glass. I did the same in the Outer Banks, North Carolina, as recently as five years ago. Keeping everything separated meant it was super easy to gather up, melt down, and turn it into new bottles.
For better or worse, local governments decided to make recycling collection curbside, and residents didn't want to have a plethora of bins at home. Over the past 20 years, more municipalities have moved toward single-stream recycling at the behest of their residents. Recycling is an extremely popular public works service, so tax dollars are spent on expanding collection services, even to the point of mandated universal curbside recycling collection. Because everybody gets a recycling bin and weekly pickup, everyone gets to feel good about being an environmentalist! Sounds great, doesn't it?
But there's a pretty big catch that a growing number of municipalities are now recognizing.
As the contents of those big bins gets more contaminated, its monetary value drops significantly. Localities used to make a lot of money by selling their recycled materials on the commodities market; the profits more than offset the costs of collection. But localities aren't making as much money anymore, to the point where cities around the country are spending more on collection than they are getting back in materials sales. Normally, a municipality would just reduce spending when a venture becomes a financial liability. But, politically, they can’t do that with recycling services that remain highly popular with the public. (Ocean City, Maryland, got rid of municipal recycling all together a few years back, sending every piece of residential solid waste to an incinerator. Residents are feeling guilty as they adjust, and groups that hold conferences at the convention center have started hiring private haulers just so they can provide recycling to attendees, lest they look bad.)
Before I started doing this trash advocacy thing full-time, I owned a design and marketing company. One of our clients was a suburban county in Ohio that desperately wanted to raise its recycling rate, from 11 to 15 percent. (One step at a time...) Through phone surveys and focus groups, we learned that the "sometimes-recyclers" felt good when they recycled, even though it was kind of a pain. (Those bins are heavy! And sometimes gross wet stuff leaks out of them!) They felt like they were doing something really good for the planet and for future generations. What elected official wants to take that away?
But these "sometimes-recyclers" also said that they recycle so they don't feel guilty about not doing anything else that's considered environmentally friendly: "It's not like I'm going to buy a Prius, so I recycle." This phenomenon has been found in other "virtuous acts"--people who use reusable bags while grocery shopping may also tend to buy more junk food. Think about similar ways you justify your own bad behavior. (My favorite is Liz Lemon having a cupcake because she planned to go to the gym later.)
The Ohio ad campaign ended up featuring real people saying they recycle because it's "one thing" they can do for a better planet/future/community. The campaign probably did raise the participation rate, but who knows if the quality of the materials is any good or if people traded out another virtuous act to do so.
Summary: Recycling is a popular behavior, so cities push participation. But the tactics that drive participation lead to contamination. There are two major culprits to this contamination: people not knowing what is actually recyclable and glass.
All plastics are not created equal.
Scenario: you have an empty plastic container in the kitchen, flip it over, squint and see the tiny number inside the chasing arrows. (The chasing arrows make you think it's recyclable but that was just a trick by the Society of the Plastics Industry. Fortunately they just changed the symbol to a simple triangle.) Maybe it's a #5 tub. Does your city collect that? Maybe you kept the mailer you got four years ago or you have time to look it up online. (Probably not.)
We learned in Ohio that giving people too much detailed information just confuses them and likely leads them to throw the stuff in the trash. But not enough info may mean an entire bale gets trashed. It's a tough problem.
The glass is half empty.
Glass is heavy, so it costs a lot to collect and transport. But it breaks and gets mixed up, and it has fairly low value on the commodities market. On the other hand, it is infinitely recyclable, and recycled glass is still cheaper to make than new glass. Domestic glass manufacturers would much prefer to have a clean stream of glass they can recycle for new bottles, and the best way to do that is to keep it separate from everything else (and separated by color). This works great in states with bottle bills (beverage container deposits). Glass manufacturers would like to add factories in more states, but they need a good glass supply in the region. A bottle bill could do this, if we're not inclined to go back to separated curbside collection. But then you're going up against beverage companies and distributors that hate any idea that could put obstacles between customers and their 24-pack of Coke Zero.
A Maryland Senate committee held a summer briefing on a proposed bottle bill last week, and I was struck by how many of the opponents defensively insisted, "I recycle a lot! My bin is always overflowing!" I wondered how much of that was empty water bottles.
So what's the answer? There probably is a perfect system that would collect every single piece of packaging that could be reused or recycled into something else. But when we're dealing with the realities of humans, and local budgets, and the scale required to make the whole transportation and logistics system that is recycling work, it's going to take some creative thinking, smart community education, and a lot of cooperation.
Ultimately, we don't want any materials to go to waste; we want people to return as much as possible; we want those materials to net as much revenue as possible; and maybe we can also prevent it from getting loose into the environment as litter. Some of the basics from the existing toolbox could get us close:
- container deposit (get the glass out!)
- bring back a separate cart for paper
- clarify what should go into recycling bins, convey it clearly, and conduct extensive public outreach to make sure people understand
- urge people to buy less packaging overall and urge manufacturers to make packaging that is recyclable (no pouches!)
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
We passed the foam trifecta!
Today the Prince George's County Council voted unanimously to ban polystyrene foam food containers and packing material for distribution or sale at restaurants and retailers. The ban takes effect in July 2016.
This means that next year your takeout dinner, your coffee, and your family picnic lunch will all be in paper or rigid plastic containers, many of which are compostable or recyclable. If they end up as litter, they will dissolve in the water, or be more likely to be caught in a trash trap.
Prince George's County joins Washington, DC, and Montgomery County in banning foam food packaging--this is great news for the Anacostia River watershed, as well as all of the neighborhoods and other rivers and streams in the region. It also levels the playing field for businesses and will create a powerful market force for alternative products; the demand for non-foam food packaging is about to explode!
We've been working with agencies in each jurisdiction to encourage collaboration in outreach to businesses, distributors, and retailers. We are also advocating for creation of a purchasing cooperative to help independent businesses band together and buy alternative products in bulk, driving down their unit costs and saving money. If DC, Montgomery, and Prince George's all participate, the buying power could be tremendous.
The three laws are all a little bit different. Let's break it down:
- DC bans foam food packaging at restaurants starting January 2016. It also requires that restaurants use recyclable or compostable materials for all disposable food ware (straws, lids, utensils) starting in 2017. The ban will be enforced with inspections by DDOE with fines imposed for violations.
- Montgomery County bans foam food packaging at restaurants, and the sale of foam food packaging and foam packing peanuts, starting January 2016. It also requires restaurants to use recyclable or compostable materials for disposable food ware starting in 2017. The ban will only be enforced by resident/consumer complaints.
- Prince George's County bans foam food packaging at restaurants, and the sale of foam food packaging and foam packing peanuts, starting July 2016. The ban will be enforced with inspections by DOE with fines imposed for violations.
This is truly an amazing victory for the whole region. More than 2.5 million people live in these three jurisdictions, and all three councils voted for these laws unanimously. We made a compelling case for the environmental and public health rationales, and we demonstrated strong public support. We identified businesses who could make their case, and we blunted industry opposition with strong rebuttals and a little bit of persuasion.
Foam comprises a quarter to even 40% of the volume of trash in the Anacostia River, and we've now banned it from the entire watershed. We started Trash Free Maryland to solve problems like this, and less than five years later, we've made incredible progress.
Thank you to Councilmembers Hans Riemer and Mary Lehman and former Mayor Vincent Gray for your passion, your work, and your leadership to get this done. And thank you to all the other councilmembers, legislative and agency staff, and advocates who have made this happen.
Trash Free Maryland commits to staying on top of the implementation of these laws, ensuring that businesses have the necessary support they need, and that enforcement is in place. We want to see foam and all trash pollution out of our neighborhoods and waterways, and we are well on our way to that goal!
This means that next year your takeout dinner, your coffee, and your family picnic lunch will all be in paper or rigid plastic containers, many of which are compostable or recyclable. If they end up as litter, they will dissolve in the water, or be more likely to be caught in a trash trap.
Prince George's County joins Washington, DC, and Montgomery County in banning foam food packaging--this is great news for the Anacostia River watershed, as well as all of the neighborhoods and other rivers and streams in the region. It also levels the playing field for businesses and will create a powerful market force for alternative products; the demand for non-foam food packaging is about to explode!
We've been working with agencies in each jurisdiction to encourage collaboration in outreach to businesses, distributors, and retailers. We are also advocating for creation of a purchasing cooperative to help independent businesses band together and buy alternative products in bulk, driving down their unit costs and saving money. If DC, Montgomery, and Prince George's all participate, the buying power could be tremendous.
The three laws are all a little bit different. Let's break it down:
- DC bans foam food packaging at restaurants starting January 2016. It also requires that restaurants use recyclable or compostable materials for all disposable food ware (straws, lids, utensils) starting in 2017. The ban will be enforced with inspections by DDOE with fines imposed for violations.
- Montgomery County bans foam food packaging at restaurants, and the sale of foam food packaging and foam packing peanuts, starting January 2016. It also requires restaurants to use recyclable or compostable materials for disposable food ware starting in 2017. The ban will only be enforced by resident/consumer complaints.
- Prince George's County bans foam food packaging at restaurants, and the sale of foam food packaging and foam packing peanuts, starting July 2016. The ban will be enforced with inspections by DOE with fines imposed for violations.
This is truly an amazing victory for the whole region. More than 2.5 million people live in these three jurisdictions, and all three councils voted for these laws unanimously. We made a compelling case for the environmental and public health rationales, and we demonstrated strong public support. We identified businesses who could make their case, and we blunted industry opposition with strong rebuttals and a little bit of persuasion.
Foam comprises a quarter to even 40% of the volume of trash in the Anacostia River, and we've now banned it from the entire watershed. We started Trash Free Maryland to solve problems like this, and less than five years later, we've made incredible progress.
Thank you to Councilmembers Hans Riemer and Mary Lehman and former Mayor Vincent Gray for your passion, your work, and your leadership to get this done. And thank you to all the other councilmembers, legislative and agency staff, and advocates who have made this happen.
Trash Free Maryland commits to staying on top of the implementation of these laws, ensuring that businesses have the necessary support they need, and that enforcement is in place. We want to see foam and all trash pollution out of our neighborhoods and waterways, and we are well on our way to that goal!
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Montgomery County Banned the Foam
I'm delighted to report that this morning the Montgomery County Council voted 8-0 to ban polystyrene foam food packaging!
The law in many ways mirrors the law passed in DC last summer:
- On January 1, 2016, restaurants and carryouts will be banned from using expanded polystyrene foam food packaging (like clamshells, plates and cups). County offices and contractors will also be required to use recyclable or compostable alternatives for all disposable food packaging.
- On January 1, 2017, all disposable food packaging at restaurants and carryouts must also be recyclable or compostable.
The Montgomery County ban also includes sale of foam food packaging for consumer use (like 100-packs of cups you might buy at the grocery store) and foam packing peanuts, effective January 2016.
The ban does not apply to Montgomery County Public Schools, but the system has already moved away from foam trays to paper ones, as of this school year. They do still have some foam cups and plates on the premises, but continue to seek cost-effective alternatives.
This is huge. Polystyrene foam comprises a quarter to as much as 40 percent of the floatable trash collected in the Anacostia River watershed. The tiny pieces it breaks into release toxic chemicals into the water, and absorb other chemicals--and then they are often eaten by fish and other aquatic life, polluting our food chain.
We are thrilled at the regional approach that DC and Montgomery County have taken, and look forward to streets and streams with less plastic pollution!
Many thanks to the Councilmembers who worked to get this legislation passed, including Council President George Leventhal, Transportation & Environment Committee Chair Roger Berliner, and of course our dedicated sponsor, Hans Riemer.
Thanks also to all the Trash Free Maryland members who worked to support this bill, including Surfrider Foundation - DC Chapter, Alice Ferguson Foundation, Anacostia Watershed Society, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Audubon Naturalist Society, Potomac Conservancy, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Rock Creek Conservancy, Neighbors of the Northwest Branch, Hiking Along LLC, Sierra Club, and Conservation Montgomery.
Great work, everyone! Now, onward!
 |
| Rock Creek in Montgomery County, Fall 2014 |
The law in many ways mirrors the law passed in DC last summer:
- On January 1, 2016, restaurants and carryouts will be banned from using expanded polystyrene foam food packaging (like clamshells, plates and cups). County offices and contractors will also be required to use recyclable or compostable alternatives for all disposable food packaging.
- On January 1, 2017, all disposable food packaging at restaurants and carryouts must also be recyclable or compostable.
The Montgomery County ban also includes sale of foam food packaging for consumer use (like 100-packs of cups you might buy at the grocery store) and foam packing peanuts, effective January 2016.
The ban does not apply to Montgomery County Public Schools, but the system has already moved away from foam trays to paper ones, as of this school year. They do still have some foam cups and plates on the premises, but continue to seek cost-effective alternatives.
This is huge. Polystyrene foam comprises a quarter to as much as 40 percent of the floatable trash collected in the Anacostia River watershed. The tiny pieces it breaks into release toxic chemicals into the water, and absorb other chemicals--and then they are often eaten by fish and other aquatic life, polluting our food chain.
We are thrilled at the regional approach that DC and Montgomery County have taken, and look forward to streets and streams with less plastic pollution!
Many thanks to the Councilmembers who worked to get this legislation passed, including Council President George Leventhal, Transportation & Environment Committee Chair Roger Berliner, and of course our dedicated sponsor, Hans Riemer.
Thanks also to all the Trash Free Maryland members who worked to support this bill, including Surfrider Foundation - DC Chapter, Alice Ferguson Foundation, Anacostia Watershed Society, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Audubon Naturalist Society, Potomac Conservancy, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Rock Creek Conservancy, Neighbors of the Northwest Branch, Hiking Along LLC, Sierra Club, and Conservation Montgomery.
Great work, everyone! Now, onward!
Monday, July 14, 2014
DC bans the foam
It's summer, so we'll take a short trip to the south…
In a marathon session before summer recess, the DC Council held its final vote today on the Sustainable DC Omnibus Act of 2013, unanimously passing 11 environmental measures, most notably a ban on polystyrene foam food containers. While dozens of cities on the West Coast have enacted such policies, DC is the first major city on the East Coast to do so.
Polystyrene is a major contributor to trash pollution, comprising roughly a quarter of the volume of trash collected at trash traps in Anacostia River tributaries. It breaks into impossibly small pieces, making it difficult to collect, and recycling is not viable.
The ban, which takes effect January 1, 2016, will cover carryout food containers like cups, plates, and clamshells from restaurants, grocery stores, and takeouts. In 2017, all disposable food service ware in the city, including lids, straws, and utensils, will have to be recyclable or compostable.
The bill was amended today to remove meat trays from the list of banned items. The amendment also requires that the District conduct a study of trash on the Anacostia River by 2016. The ban is not contingent on the study, and it could prove very helpful to demonstrate how effective trash reduction activities have been since the last major study in 2008. (Ongoing tracking of material caught in traps shows trends--like reductions in plastic bags.)
Trash Free Maryland director Julie Lawson worked closely on the campaign, keeping TFMD members informed and identifying strategies for getting them involved. She also directly lobbied councilmembers, wrote an article for Greater Greater Washington, kept the issue on the forefront of social media, and worked with outside stakeholders to either garner support or keep them on the sidelines. The original bill language proposed an effective date of 2018; we successfully argued to move it up to 2016.
Thanks to the TFMD members who were instrumental in this victory, including Alice Ferguson Foundation, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Anacostia Watershed Society, Clean Water Action, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and the DC Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. Thanks also to our DC partners, DC Environmental Network and the Sierra Club DC Chapter.
In a marathon session before summer recess, the DC Council held its final vote today on the Sustainable DC Omnibus Act of 2013, unanimously passing 11 environmental measures, most notably a ban on polystyrene foam food containers. While dozens of cities on the West Coast have enacted such policies, DC is the first major city on the East Coast to do so.
Polystyrene is a major contributor to trash pollution, comprising roughly a quarter of the volume of trash collected at trash traps in Anacostia River tributaries. It breaks into impossibly small pieces, making it difficult to collect, and recycling is not viable.
The ban, which takes effect January 1, 2016, will cover carryout food containers like cups, plates, and clamshells from restaurants, grocery stores, and takeouts. In 2017, all disposable food service ware in the city, including lids, straws, and utensils, will have to be recyclable or compostable.
The bill was amended today to remove meat trays from the list of banned items. The amendment also requires that the District conduct a study of trash on the Anacostia River by 2016. The ban is not contingent on the study, and it could prove very helpful to demonstrate how effective trash reduction activities have been since the last major study in 2008. (Ongoing tracking of material caught in traps shows trends--like reductions in plastic bags.)
Trash Free Maryland director Julie Lawson worked closely on the campaign, keeping TFMD members informed and identifying strategies for getting them involved. She also directly lobbied councilmembers, wrote an article for Greater Greater Washington, kept the issue on the forefront of social media, and worked with outside stakeholders to either garner support or keep them on the sidelines. The original bill language proposed an effective date of 2018; we successfully argued to move it up to 2016.
Thanks to the TFMD members who were instrumental in this victory, including Alice Ferguson Foundation, Anacostia Riverkeeper, Anacostia Watershed Society, Clean Water Action, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and the DC Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation. Thanks also to our DC partners, DC Environmental Network and the Sierra Club DC Chapter.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Bag fees: Where does the money go?
I've been terrible at updating this summer. Plus I get asked this question a lot, so it seems like I should document it for posterity.
So you are shopping in DC or Montgomery County, and you forgot your reusable bag and opt to buy a disposable one. You pay your nickel to the cashier, and you're on your way. But where does the nickel go?
In DC, the store keeps 1 or 2 cents. The remainder is collected by the Office of Tax and Revenue and managed by the District Department of the Environment in the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund. This fund is used for the following:
- administration and enforcement of the law
- public and business outreach and education about the law (including distribution of reusable bags)
- restoration activities on the Anacostia River (including trash traps, stream restoration, and an anti-litter public education campaign)
 |
| How funds from the DC bag bill were spent in Fiscal Year 2012 |
DC collects about $1.8 million each year this way.
In Montgomery County, the store keeps 1 cent. The remainder is collected by the Department of Finance and managed by the Department of Environmental Protection in the Water Quality Improvement Fund. The WQIF is primarily funded by the stormwater utility--bag fee revenues are an offset to that charge (i.e., utility charges go down if the bag revenues are higher than expected). The Fund is used for a variety of stormwater mitigation programs, including retention swales that collect stormwater as well as trash. This fund also pays for reusable bags for distribution to the public.
Montgomery County collected about $2.3 million last year.
The way the Maryland statewide bag bill is written, the store would keep 1 cent. The remainder would be collected by the Comptroller. Small portions would go to the Department of Human Resources for distribution of reusable bags, the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation for enforcement, and stay with the Comptroller for administration. The remainder would be split, with half going to the Chesapeake Bay Trust for grantmaking to local organizations and jurisdictions, and half being returned to counties (apportioned based on population size) for use in water quality improvements.
In other ordinances around the country, the store retains the entire fee (in which case it usually ends up being called a "charge" instead of a "fee").
Friday, March 8, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The DC bag fee is cleaning up the Anacostia River
Nash Run is one of the dirtiest streams in the Anacostia River watershed. However, thanks to D.C’s 5-cent disposable bag fee, one major source of pollution is finally on the decline.
“Astronomical levels of trash” and “dirtiest of all streams” -- these are phrases used to describe the humble little Nash Run, a small tributary of the Anacostia River. Nash Run starts in Fairmount Heights, MD, and runs through the Deanwood neighborhood of DC before emptying into the Anacostia near the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens. It is one of the biggest contributors of the litter pollution impairing the Anacostia River. But a study on this stream over the past 4 years offers hope that the litter problem can be reversed.
Before the bag fee, and for a short time after, the number of bags in the Anacostia seems to have actually been increasing. Data from a 2007-2008 yearlong survey by the District Department of the Environment show that the total number of bags found in eight tributary streams doubled in a single year. Of course, the absolute numbers of bags (and all litter) varies a lot depending on the weather, but this survey showed an increasing trend:
Chart from Anacostia River Trash Reduction Plan, referring to monitoring study results from Summer 2007 to Spring 2008, before the bag fee. “Number” is the total # of plastic bags found during surveys of 8 stream tributaries of the Anacostia River.
In 2009, the Anacostia Watershed Society installed a trash trap on Nash Run and began collecting data on the types of trash it collected. The trash trap is a special device placed in the stream that allows water to pass through, but catches litter. Once a month for the past four years, volunteers have cleaned out the trap and counted the number of bottles, styrofoam, bags, and other debris.
The amount of trash collected depends on how much rain has fallen during the month -- heavy rainfall carries more trash to the stream and thus the trap. So in order to have a more objective measure of the change in plastic bag use, we use the number of bags found compared to the total amount of trash collected -- expressed as bags per kilogram of trash.
.jpg)
As you can see, similar to the DDOE chart above, this chart also shows an increasing trend in plastic bag litter from March 2009 to June 2010. However, the overall trend is a decrease in plastic bags polluting the stream over the 3-year period after the bag fee was implemented, from January 2010 to November 2012. Why didn’t decline didn’t start immediately after the bag went into effect? We can see several reasons why this might be the case: First, about one third of the Nash Run watershed is actually in Prince George’s County, MD, where there is no bag fee. So, the number of bags entering the stream from Maryland was presumably still increasing according to that 2007-2009 trend. Secondly, it takes time for litter to make its way from neighborhood streets to local streams. Third, compliance and understanding of the bag fee was not 100% right away. So, it’s not too surprising that the number of bags in the stream didn’t drop immediately.
What is clear is that the number of bags is declining, and that this decreasing trend matches the experience of other stream cleanup groups in the DC region. The Alice Ferguson Foundation, which runs cleanup events throughout the Potomac watershed, reported a 50% decline in plastic bags in Montgomery County in the first year after the the Montgomery bag fee went live. The faster decrease may be due to a faster adoption rate in Montgomery County and streams that are fully within the county, unlike Nash Run.
The Anacostia Watershed Society will continue to tally monthly data from the trash trap on Nash Run. Based on these initial results, we expect to see the decline in plastic bags continue, especially if Prince George’s County and/or the state of Maryland implement their own 5-cent bag fees.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Logic as flimsy as a cheap plastic bag
Right-wing think tank Beacon Hill Institute is out with an update to their 2011 report on the DC bag fee. Last year I opted not to respond to their "study" because it seemed so flawed that surely no one would take it seriously. Unfortunately it came up several times during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions, so we need to go on record this time about the new misinformation they are circulating.
Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform, the organization that funded the BHI study, published an op-ed on National Review Online yesterday that takes BHI's already flawed study and adds a whole new layer of bad logic. DCist posted an excellent rebuttal to Gleason's op-ed, so rather than be redundant here, I'm just going to add a few additional points.
Gleason contends that the fee failed because it both didn't raise the revenue projected nor has it reduced bag use as much as it could. Of course if disposable bag use dropped 80 to 90 percent or more, almost no one would be paying the fee and thus almost no money would go toward the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund. And that was the design all along! While the CFO initially projected the bag fee would raise $3.6 million in 2010, that projection assumed that people would be slow to adopt the practice of refusing disposable bags. They weren't. Bag use reductions of 60 percent or more were reported by stores within two weeks of the fee taking effect. That's reason to celebrate.
Ultimately we don't want anyone using disposable bags. That means the fund would be empty--which is why the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act also established a speciality license plate and a donation option on income tax forms, so that there would still be revenue streams to fund restoration projects. But the real impact of the fee isn't the Cleanup Fund at all--it's the lack of bags escaping into the environment and polluting our rivers, streams, and neighborhoods. These bags cost the District millions of dollars a year in cleanup and disposal cost--far more than the $2 million the bag fee generates. They also create blight and contribute to the Broken Window Theory--litter begets more litter, neglect, and even crime.
As far as BHI's claim that the bag fee is killing jobs, it's actually creating them. To see more about how the Cleanup Fund is being used, watch this video from the District Department of the Environment:
Is installing trash traps and rain barrels, planting trees, and teaching kids about how littering is wrong, "corrupt" and "a cash grab"?
Gleason laments that bag use has only declined 67 percent. Honestly, that's higher than the number I use, 60 percent, which comes from a combination of anecdotal reports, cleanup data from the Alice Ferguson Foundation (AFF) and Anacostia Watershed Society (AWS), and a 2010 business survey conducted by AFF. He refers to an "80 percent drop expected by bag-tax proponents." We never set expectations; the legislation's fiscal impact statement suggested a 50-percent drop by the end of 2010 and a 90-percent drop by the end of 2014. The sometimes-reported 80-percent drop comes from the fees collected in January 2010, $150,000, which implies that District shoppers went from using 22.5 million bags per month based on 2009 usage estimates to 3 million bags per month. But the numbers don't really work that way, since not all businesses report their tax and fee collections monthly, they are actually remitting only 3-4 cents per bag distributed, and certainly compliance wasn't great in the early weeks. Hopefully we will get to 80 percent as businesses better understand the law and comply with it more broadly.
And it is in businesses' best interest to comply. That 2010 AFF survey showed that 78 percent of businesses--of all sizes--experienced either no impact or a positive impact since the fee took effect. Only 12 percent expressed any negative feeling toward it. What do businesses like about it? Mostly, they save a whole lot of money. Shoppers may think of those bags as "free," but the stores have to buy them. They are one of the largest expenses in the retailer's overhead, behind rent, payroll, and utilities. If 75 percent of shoppers are using fewer of them, that's a lot of money the stores can put back into employee salaries and benefits.
(Remember that you can report a business for violating the disposable bag law on DDOE's website or by calling 202-407-1277! First they receive a warning and education about the law; they are only fined on the second offense.)
As to the BHI claim that District residents are leaving the city to shop to avoid the fee, Safeway is on record as saying that they have seen no evidence of that. No business reported lower sales in the 2010 survey, either. And if people are willing to pay for gas or transit fare only to go to Prince George's County or Virginia--which charges sales tax on groceries--then I question their logic and math skills.
Gleason himself says in his author's note that he avoids the bag fee at all costs. That's exactly what we were going for. Don't pay it--don't use disposable bags! Or as DDOE so succinctly says, Skip the Bag, Save the River.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Early numbers are in from Montgomery County
Montgomery County's bag fee earned $154,000 for the county's Water Quality Improvement Fund in January. This figure is based on tax receipts from many county retailers, and is the remainder after the retailers kept their portion (one cent from every five).
But what does this number really mean? At this point, not much. One month is nowhere near enough time to measure behavior change; there is a learning curve for shoppers and businesses. Not all businesses have even submitted tax receipts yet because their collections haven't reached the required threshold. It's just too early. Washington, DC, never intended to scientifically measure the before-and-after until two years in--that study will occur later this year.
In the meantime, we can compare it to early results in DC and make some hypotheses, as the laws are quite similar. In January 2010, the DC bag fee generated $150,000 for the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund--approximately the same amount. But Montgomery County's population is more than 50% larger than DC's, approximately 970,000 residents to DC's 600,000. Granted, the daytime (employee) population is higher than the resident population in DC, but generally speaking we can interpolate that fewer plastic bags were used per capita in Montgomery County in January 2012 than were used in DC in January 2010.
We know in DC that 75% of residents ultimately say they have changed their behavior and use fewer plastic bags. The quick adoption of reusable bags meant that the fee did not generate as much revenue as was originally expected--less than $2 million the first year compared to the expected $3.5 million. This is a success, because it meant more people used reusable bags, having a greater impact on litter reduction and waste.
Montgomery County subsequently scaled back their revenue expectations even further, estimating only $1.2 million in revenue the first year. They expected that behavior would change even more quickly since people are already familiar with the program in DC. Since we also expect monthly revenues to decline over time, this first month's amount is on track with the estimate and shows that Montgomery County consumers are indeed beginning to make the switch from single-use disposable to reusing--or even refusing--bags when shopping.
But what does this number really mean? At this point, not much. One month is nowhere near enough time to measure behavior change; there is a learning curve for shoppers and businesses. Not all businesses have even submitted tax receipts yet because their collections haven't reached the required threshold. It's just too early. Washington, DC, never intended to scientifically measure the before-and-after until two years in--that study will occur later this year.
In the meantime, we can compare it to early results in DC and make some hypotheses, as the laws are quite similar. In January 2010, the DC bag fee generated $150,000 for the Anacostia River Cleanup Fund--approximately the same amount. But Montgomery County's population is more than 50% larger than DC's, approximately 970,000 residents to DC's 600,000. Granted, the daytime (employee) population is higher than the resident population in DC, but generally speaking we can interpolate that fewer plastic bags were used per capita in Montgomery County in January 2012 than were used in DC in January 2010.
We know in DC that 75% of residents ultimately say they have changed their behavior and use fewer plastic bags. The quick adoption of reusable bags meant that the fee did not generate as much revenue as was originally expected--less than $2 million the first year compared to the expected $3.5 million. This is a success, because it meant more people used reusable bags, having a greater impact on litter reduction and waste.
Montgomery County subsequently scaled back their revenue expectations even further, estimating only $1.2 million in revenue the first year. They expected that behavior would change even more quickly since people are already familiar with the program in DC. Since we also expect monthly revenues to decline over time, this first month's amount is on track with the estimate and shows that Montgomery County consumers are indeed beginning to make the switch from single-use disposable to reusing--or even refusing--bags when shopping.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Introducing the Community Cleanup and Greening Act of 2012
Last Thursday Delegate Mary Washington (D-District 43, Baltimore City) introduced the Community Cleanup and Greening Act in the House of Delegates of the Maryland General Assembly. Senator Brian Frosh (D-District 16, Montgomery County) introduced the same bill in the Senate on February 2.
The Community Cleanup and Greening Act aims to reduce litter in Maryland's neighborhoods and environment by imposing a five-cent fee on disposable plastic and paper bags. One to two cents stays with the retailer. The remaining proceeds will be split three ways: to purchase and distribute free reusable bags to low-income and elderly residents; for counties to apply to water quality improvement projects; and for the Chesapeake Bay Trust to administer as environmental restoration grants.
"A bag fee can have a substantial impact on litter, because it encourages shoppers to use reusable bags," said Julie Lawson, Organizer of the Trash Free Maryland Alliance. "If the program never collects a nickel, because everyone switches to reusables, we will have achieved our goal."
The legislation is modeled on successful programs in place in Washington, DC and Montgomery County. In the two years since the implementation of the Anacostia River Cleanup & Protection Act, 75 percent of DC residents say they have reduced their use of plastic bags, leading to reduced costs for retailers and fewer bags picked up at river cleanup events. Proceeds of the fee have been used as grants for green businesses and nonprofit organizations working to restore the Anacostia River, as well as for distributing thousands of reusable bags to those in need.
"There is no such thing as a free bag," said Laurie Schwartz, Executive Director of the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore. "Retailers could see significant cost savings as they will not have to buy as many bags to then give away. Even a small mom-and-pop shop might save over $1,000 a year."
"Litter brings down the quality of life for residents," added Halle Van der Gaag, Executive Director of Blue Water Baltimore. "It is not only visually ugly but contaminates our waterways. Baltimore City spends more than $10 million each year to clean it up, so preventing it in the first place is more sustainable in the long-term."
The Community Cleanup & Greening Act, SB511, will be heard by the Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee on February 28. The hearing on HB1247 has not yet been scheduled.
The Community Cleanup and Greening Act aims to reduce litter in Maryland's neighborhoods and environment by imposing a five-cent fee on disposable plastic and paper bags. One to two cents stays with the retailer. The remaining proceeds will be split three ways: to purchase and distribute free reusable bags to low-income and elderly residents; for counties to apply to water quality improvement projects; and for the Chesapeake Bay Trust to administer as environmental restoration grants.
"A bag fee can have a substantial impact on litter, because it encourages shoppers to use reusable bags," said Julie Lawson, Organizer of the Trash Free Maryland Alliance. "If the program never collects a nickel, because everyone switches to reusables, we will have achieved our goal."
The legislation is modeled on successful programs in place in Washington, DC and Montgomery County. In the two years since the implementation of the Anacostia River Cleanup & Protection Act, 75 percent of DC residents say they have reduced their use of plastic bags, leading to reduced costs for retailers and fewer bags picked up at river cleanup events. Proceeds of the fee have been used as grants for green businesses and nonprofit organizations working to restore the Anacostia River, as well as for distributing thousands of reusable bags to those in need.
"There is no such thing as a free bag," said Laurie Schwartz, Executive Director of the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore. "Retailers could see significant cost savings as they will not have to buy as many bags to then give away. Even a small mom-and-pop shop might save over $1,000 a year."
"Litter brings down the quality of life for residents," added Halle Van der Gaag, Executive Director of Blue Water Baltimore. "It is not only visually ugly but contaminates our waterways. Baltimore City spends more than $10 million each year to clean it up, so preventing it in the first place is more sustainable in the long-term."
The Community Cleanup & Greening Act, SB511, will be heard by the Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee on February 28. The hearing on HB1247 has not yet been scheduled.
Monday, August 9, 2010
12 Minutes to Blight
On average, a disposable bag has a useful life of 12 minutes, from the store to your home, to the trash. Nationwide fewer than 5% of single-use plastic bags are recycled, leading to the ubiquitous "plastic tumbleweed" that chokes sewer systems, farm equipment, and marine life.
According to a recent study, single-use plastic bags comprise as much as 50% of the trash littering streams in the suburbs of Washington, DC, and their effects downstream are widely reported.
This year Washington, DC, became the first city in the nation to charge 5 cents for single-use plastic and paper bags, in an effort to cut down on the volume of bags littering local waterways. The fee also generates the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund, which will pay for additional trash-control measures as well as free reusable bags for those in need. In mere weeks, the city saw bag use drop by as much as 80%. Volunteers at river cleanups are reporting as many as 50% fewer bags collected.
According to a recent study, single-use plastic bags comprise as much as 50% of the trash littering streams in the suburbs of Washington, DC, and their effects downstream are widely reported.
This year Washington, DC, became the first city in the nation to charge 5 cents for single-use plastic and paper bags, in an effort to cut down on the volume of bags littering local waterways. The fee also generates the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund, which will pay for additional trash-control measures as well as free reusable bags for those in need. In mere weeks, the city saw bag use drop by as much as 80%. Volunteers at river cleanups are reporting as many as 50% fewer bags collected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)