When did we become a plastic society?
Posted by Jeff Bridges on Monday, March 28, 2016
Showing posts with label recycling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recycling. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2016
When did we become a plastic society?
Take a couple of minutes and check out this great video by Jeff Bridges for the Plastic Pollution Coalition. Share the video with your friends, and then get involved with us to make a difference right here in Maryland!
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!)
Thursday, October 2, 2014
October means we're two steps closer to trash free
Yesterday, lots of new laws took effect in Maryland, DC, and Virginia, like DC's "yoga tax" and Maryland's marijuana decriminalization. But we're most excited about two new laws the media isn't writing about:
- SB390, which adds points to the driver's licenses of people convicted of illegal dumping. This bill was introduced by the Baltimore City Delegation in response to the City's excellent work in catching people dumping construction debris and other large amounts of trash. The City has mobile cameras; they set them up at dumping hot spots and get photographic evidence of people, their vehicles, and the act of illegal dumping. They convict almost 500 people a year this way!
But if those people go to another county and dump there too, if they get caught, the other county almost never knows that those individuals have a record in the City. They miss out on a chance to smack them with a high penalty for repeat violations. By tying these convictions to Motor Vehicle Administration records, it will be much easier to identify this repeat offenders. Ultimately the penalties will hopefully get offenders' attention where fines may not. Points can range from 2 to 5 points--that's the same level as speeding by 30 mph over the limit or failing to report an accident, among other crimes--depending on the amount of material dumped.
While we focus most of our efforts on source reduction policies, strong enforcement is also an important part of modifying behavior.
- SB781 requires special events to have recycling bins next to every trash can, and for event organizers to have a plan for actually recycling collected material. This requirement applies to every event on public space that serves food and/or drink and expects 200 or more attendees. Counties have until 2015 to revise their recycling plans to accommodate this new requirement.
While recycling doesn't necessarily reduce litter, getting people into the habit of recycling when they are out and about will help capture more recyclable material, and just might make the eventual transition to a container deposit a little easier.
Thank you to the Baltimore City Delegation and Administration, and to Senator Karen Montgomery, for making these victories possible!
- SB390, which adds points to the driver's licenses of people convicted of illegal dumping. This bill was introduced by the Baltimore City Delegation in response to the City's excellent work in catching people dumping construction debris and other large amounts of trash. The City has mobile cameras; they set them up at dumping hot spots and get photographic evidence of people, their vehicles, and the act of illegal dumping. They convict almost 500 people a year this way!
But if those people go to another county and dump there too, if they get caught, the other county almost never knows that those individuals have a record in the City. They miss out on a chance to smack them with a high penalty for repeat violations. By tying these convictions to Motor Vehicle Administration records, it will be much easier to identify this repeat offenders. Ultimately the penalties will hopefully get offenders' attention where fines may not. Points can range from 2 to 5 points--that's the same level as speeding by 30 mph over the limit or failing to report an accident, among other crimes--depending on the amount of material dumped.
While we focus most of our efforts on source reduction policies, strong enforcement is also an important part of modifying behavior.
- SB781 requires special events to have recycling bins next to every trash can, and for event organizers to have a plan for actually recycling collected material. This requirement applies to every event on public space that serves food and/or drink and expects 200 or more attendees. Counties have until 2015 to revise their recycling plans to accommodate this new requirement.
While recycling doesn't necessarily reduce litter, getting people into the habit of recycling when they are out and about will help capture more recyclable material, and just might make the eventual transition to a container deposit a little easier.
Thank you to the Baltimore City Delegation and Administration, and to Senator Karen Montgomery, for making these victories possible!
Friday, May 9, 2014
Press Release: Maryland Improves Access to Public Space Recycling
 |
| Supporters of SB781 at the bill signing, including Senator Karen Montgomery, second from left, and Elvia Thompson of Annapolis Green, second from right, back row. Photo via Creative Commons license, courtesy of Executive Office of the Governor. |
ANNAPOLIS (May 5, 2014) -- Today Governor Martin O’Malley signed legislation requiring public events in Maryland to provide recycling.
SB781, drafted by Senator Karen Montgomery (D-Montgomery County), requires organizers of all special events on public property, attended by 200 or more people and providing food or drink, to have recycling containers located next to each provided trash can. Event organizers also must demonstrate a plan for collecting and recycling the material. The law takes effect October 1, 2014.
“By making recycling at events more convenient, people will more likely choose to recycle,” said Senator Montgomery. “They may start expecting and demanding recycling to be made more available in other areas as well. I hope this bill will stimulate future plans for recycling receptacles in public and commercial buildings in Maryland.”
“This new law will make it easier for event participants to dispose of their trash properly,” said Julie Lawson, director of the Trash Free Maryland Alliance. “Marylanders are already leaders in recycling at home. Now they’ll have better access to recycling when out and about. The more aware we are of how our trash is handled, the less litter we’ll have in our communities.”
The Trash Free Maryland Alliance provided testimony on the bill in committee hearings, supported by members with experience providing recycling to events in their communities. The Alliance’s testimony highlighted efforts by the Catoctin Group of the Sierra Club in Washington County, and by Annapolis Green in Anne Arundel County.
“Annapolis Green is delighted that Governor O’Malley signed SB781 into law today,” said Elvia Thompson, Co-Founder of Annapolis Green. “The requirement for recycling at large public events sends a clear message throughout the state that this is an important part of the Maryland’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gases by 25%, based on 2006 levels, by 2020.”
“We commend the foresight of Senator Karen Montgomery in sponsoring the bill and the hard work of Trash Free Maryland to see it signed into law,” she added.
Annapolis Green has, for the past two years, helped planners of special events—from boat shows to regattas to garden parties and crab feasts—reduce their waste by recycling and composting through its Responsible Events and Festivals (REF) program. REF includes not only providing the use of Annapolis Green’s distinctive “eco-stations” for special event use, but also providing tools for planners to use to educate eventgoers, exhibitors, volunteers, and staff about the effort and its importance.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Mid-February Legislative Update
We are one month into the three-month session of the Maryland General Assembly. Here's a quick report on bills we are following:
SB707/HB718 Community Cleanup and Greening Act: This is the bag bill. This year we are proposing that all counties in the state receive authority to enact their own fees on disposable bags. Right now only Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Montgomery County have such authority. The bills are sponsored by Senator Jamie Raskin and Delegate Al Carr, both of Montgomery County.
Hearings: Friday, February 21, Environmental Matters Committee (House) and Tuesday, February 25, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (Senate)
HB1049 Prince George's County Authority to Impose Fees for Use of Disposable Bags: This is a local version of HB718, applying only to Prince George's County. The sponsors are Senator Paul Pinsky and Delegate Barbara Frush. We are waiting for a discussion and hearing to be scheduled in the County Affairs subcommittee of the Prince George's County House Delegation.
SB394 Statewide Container Recycling Refund Program: This is the container deposit, or bottle bill. It would create a system where the purchase of each bottle and can would include a five-cent deposit, refundable when the consumer returns the container for recycling at an authorized location. The bill is sponsored by Senator Brian Frosh of Montgomery County.
Hearing: Thursday, February 20, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (Senate)
HB405 Sales of Nonbiodegradable Cigarettes – Prohibited: This bill, sponsored by Baltimore County Delegate Jon Cardin, proposed to require all cigarettes sold in Maryland have biodegradable filters. While the intent of the bill is to reduce trash pollution, we had concerns for unintended consequences, and submitted informational testimony, described on our blog yesterday. The bill was heard in the Economic Matters Committee of the House last week but was already voted down.
SB56/HB240 Solid Waste Management Practices – Maryland Recycling and Landfill Diversion Task Force: This bill proposes a task force to study raising the recycling minimum standards and reducing maximum landfill rates for municipal solid waste in the counties. Trash Free Maryland is named as a participant in the task force, but because of a lack on consensus among Alliance members, we took no position on the bill. The sponsors are Senator Mac Middleton of Charles County and Delegate Steve Lafferty of Baltimore County. Hearings were held in Economic Matters and Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs on February 6 and February 11, respectively.
SB390/HB386 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Law – Driver's License – Points: This local bill would allowBaltimore City to add the addition of 8 points to the driver's license of people convicted of illegal dumping while using a motor vehicle. Eight points is the same penalty applied in drunk driving and hit-and-run convictions, and generally results in an immediate license suspension. We supported the bill in hearings last week (in Judiciary and Judicial Proceedings), because stronger enforcement of litter laws will likely prevent the dumping in the first place. The bills were introduced by the Baltimore City delegation at the request of the mayor.
Updated 2/26: This bill would apply statewide, not just in Baltimore City. An amended version (lowering the points from 8 to 2–5) has passed the House and is now being considered in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
SB566 Littering – Mandatory Public Service: This bill, introduced by Senator Bryan Simonaire of Anne Arundel County, would add litter cleanup requirements to all littering convictions. The service requirement would be 8 to 24 hours, based on the quantity of trash littered.
Hearing: February 19, Judicial Proceedings Committee (Senate)
SB707/HB718 Community Cleanup and Greening Act: This is the bag bill. This year we are proposing that all counties in the state receive authority to enact their own fees on disposable bags. Right now only Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Montgomery County have such authority. The bills are sponsored by Senator Jamie Raskin and Delegate Al Carr, both of Montgomery County.
Hearings: Friday, February 21, Environmental Matters Committee (House) and Tuesday, February 25, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (Senate)
HB1049 Prince George's County Authority to Impose Fees for Use of Disposable Bags: This is a local version of HB718, applying only to Prince George's County. The sponsors are Senator Paul Pinsky and Delegate Barbara Frush. We are waiting for a discussion and hearing to be scheduled in the County Affairs subcommittee of the Prince George's County House Delegation.
SB394 Statewide Container Recycling Refund Program: This is the container deposit, or bottle bill. It would create a system where the purchase of each bottle and can would include a five-cent deposit, refundable when the consumer returns the container for recycling at an authorized location. The bill is sponsored by Senator Brian Frosh of Montgomery County.
Hearing: Thursday, February 20, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee (Senate)
HB405 Sales of Nonbiodegradable Cigarettes – Prohibited: This bill, sponsored by Baltimore County Delegate Jon Cardin, proposed to require all cigarettes sold in Maryland have biodegradable filters. While the intent of the bill is to reduce trash pollution, we had concerns for unintended consequences, and submitted informational testimony, described on our blog yesterday. The bill was heard in the Economic Matters Committee of the House last week but was already voted down.
SB56/HB240 Solid Waste Management Practices – Maryland Recycling and Landfill Diversion Task Force: This bill proposes a task force to study raising the recycling minimum standards and reducing maximum landfill rates for municipal solid waste in the counties. Trash Free Maryland is named as a participant in the task force, but because of a lack on consensus among Alliance members, we took no position on the bill. The sponsors are Senator Mac Middleton of Charles County and Delegate Steve Lafferty of Baltimore County. Hearings were held in Economic Matters and Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs on February 6 and February 11, respectively.
SB390/HB386 Illegal Dumping and Litter Control Law – Driver's License – Points: This local bill would allow
Updated 2/26: This bill would apply statewide, not just in Baltimore City. An amended version (lowering the points from 8 to 2–5) has passed the House and is now being considered in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.
SB566 Littering – Mandatory Public Service: This bill, introduced by Senator Bryan Simonaire of Anne Arundel County, would add litter cleanup requirements to all littering convictions. The service requirement would be 8 to 24 hours, based on the quantity of trash littered.
Hearing: February 19, Judicial Proceedings Committee (Senate)
Monday, January 14, 2013
What could a bottle bill do for Maryland?
Today Delegate Maggie McIntosh (chair of the Environmental Matters Committee) will announce that she is introducing a bottle bill for Maryland to the General Assembly. For those of us in the trash world, this is a very big deal. But it's a big deal for all Marylanders, too!
A bottle bill, or container deposit, applies a refundable charge to every plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage container sold in the state (generally, milk products are excepted). Yes, your six-pack of beer will cost a few cents more at the store. But when you finish the beverage, you return the empty bottles to a recycling facility, and get that money back! There is no net cost to you.
There is a tremendous cost to uncontrolled trash, though. Both the Anacostia River and Baltimore Harbor are deemed "impaired" by trash under the Clean Water Act. Montgomery, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties, as well as Baltimore City, are under federal mandate to clean up the mess. Soon, all counties with stormwater permits will also have to address trash. Many of those solutions cost money.
Virtually all of those obligations could be met with this one law.
Beverage containers generally make up at least half of the trash in the Nash Run Trash Trap, maintained by the Anacostia Watershed Society. See this photo from last May, where the trash was sorted by category:
A refundable deposit on those containers will reduce that load to almost zero. People are significantly less inclined to litter when they know the container has value. Those that do "get loose" into the world are quickly picked up by people who cash it in--whether it's youth groups, homeless individuals, or entrepreneurs.
Maryland currently recycles just 22% of these containers. Michigan, which has a 10-cent deposit, recycles 90%!
Container deposits create new jobs in the recycling sector, as people are needed to collect and sort the returned containers.
This is a very exciting proposal for Maryland, and we are delighted to be working with our friends at the Recycle for Real campaign and Chairwoman McIntosh on this opportunity.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Maryland General Assembly Trash Roundup
By now you've probably heard that the Community Cleanup & Greening Act did not pass in the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly. We fought hard and had some successes along the way, but given the heavy load of challenging legislation in this session, we couldn't quite float to the top. Thanks so much to all the activists and organizations that spoke out in support and contributed to the effort, and tremendous thanks to our dedicated sponsors, Delegate Mary Washington and Senator Brian Frosh.
But there were several bills related to litter, and of interest to our members, in this session. How did we do there?
- Prince George's County bag fee: Unfortunately, after successfully getting through the County delegation, the bill to give Prince George's County the power to establish its own bag fee failed in the House Environmental Matters Committee. I examined the path that proposal took on Greater Greater Washington back in March. The County now faces the choice of trying a third time in the General Assembly, taking the five-cent fee to the ballot, or looking at other methods to reduce bag use and litter. We're in those conversations and will keep you posted.
- Bottle bill: HB1115/SB875 sought to require the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to produce a concept for a container deposit system and present it to the General Assembly and the Governor for consideration. This would be a first step in creating a "bottle bill" as exists in 10 US states and Guam (as well as numerous countries). These systems increase container recycling rates from a typical 25 percent to 75 percent or more, dramatically reducing litter. Unfortunately this bill failed to receive a vote in committee in either the House or Senate.
- Plastic bag recycling: Delegate Stephen Lafferty and Senator Joan Carter Conway sponsored industry-supported bills to push for a recycling solution to bag litter, by requiring bag manufacturers to register with MDE and implement a recycling program (extended producer responsibility), as well as require retailers to offer bag take-back recycling programs for shoppers. While the proposals passed the Senate, they did not receive a committee vote in the House. I wrote about these proposals during session, and how they were a poor substitute for real, impactful litter-reduction legislation, so this failure is good news for trash-free advocates!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Plastics industry introduces two weak alternatives
Two industry-written proposals have been introduced in the General Assembly in recent days. Their intent is to make it look like the industry is "doing something." In fact, they will only encourage complacency and confuse people when stronger, more effective proposals are also achievable.
Late last week SB164 was introduced in the General Assembly. The Plastic Bag Recycling Act is a sort of extended producer responsibility (EPR) measure intended to appear as though the plastics industry is taking steps to become more sustainable.
EPR is in theory a good thing--you make something, you should be responsible for dealing with it at the end of its useful life, instead of leaving that to the general public (i.e., taxpayers) or simply abandoning it. European countries have strong EPR laws and their municipal waste volumes are quite low compared to ours in the U.S.
But weak EPR proposals can also hinder the success of real, viable, effective solutions, because it makes people think they are doing something, and resistant to doing more, when in fact nothing of substance changes.
And that is the case here. SB164 requires plastic bag manufacturers to register with the state, print their names on the bags they distribute to retailers in the state, and file reports about how many bags they sell and recycle. They are also required to educate the public about recycling.
How printing the manufacturer's name on a bag reduces litter, I really can't say.
Identical legislation was considered in Illinois last year but it failed to get out of committee.
We expect this to be cross-filed in the House shortly. Meanwhile we already have HB169, which requires stores to maintain recycling bins where customers can bring their bags back. In theory, this is fine--not all jurisdictions offer curbside recycling of plastic bags, and it discourages shoppers from just throwing them away. But retailers are already paying to have their trash taken away; adding recycling pickup adds cost. Small businesses will really feel that extra cost.
And while plastic bags are theoretically recyclable, even if every one of the 3 billion bags Marylanders use each year were turned in for recycling, the infrastructure just isn't there to handle them all. More than 90% of them will be landfilled or incinerated--or lost to the breeze during transportation and become litter anyway. (See the EPA's own data, fourth bullet under Just the Facts. That green box on the right side of the page might interest some of you as well.)
Thus we need to look at proposals that will target that "3 billion bags used" number. Reducing the amount of bags we use is the only way to truly reduce how much trash we produce, and how much litter blights our neighborhoods.
The Community Cleanup and Greening Act will be introduced next week. Stay tuned.
Late last week SB164 was introduced in the General Assembly. The Plastic Bag Recycling Act is a sort of extended producer responsibility (EPR) measure intended to appear as though the plastics industry is taking steps to become more sustainable.
EPR is in theory a good thing--you make something, you should be responsible for dealing with it at the end of its useful life, instead of leaving that to the general public (i.e., taxpayers) or simply abandoning it. European countries have strong EPR laws and their municipal waste volumes are quite low compared to ours in the U.S.
But weak EPR proposals can also hinder the success of real, viable, effective solutions, because it makes people think they are doing something, and resistant to doing more, when in fact nothing of substance changes.
And that is the case here. SB164 requires plastic bag manufacturers to register with the state, print their names on the bags they distribute to retailers in the state, and file reports about how many bags they sell and recycle. They are also required to educate the public about recycling.
How printing the manufacturer's name on a bag reduces litter, I really can't say.
Identical legislation was considered in Illinois last year but it failed to get out of committee.
We expect this to be cross-filed in the House shortly. Meanwhile we already have HB169, which requires stores to maintain recycling bins where customers can bring their bags back. In theory, this is fine--not all jurisdictions offer curbside recycling of plastic bags, and it discourages shoppers from just throwing them away. But retailers are already paying to have their trash taken away; adding recycling pickup adds cost. Small businesses will really feel that extra cost.
And while plastic bags are theoretically recyclable, even if every one of the 3 billion bags Marylanders use each year were turned in for recycling, the infrastructure just isn't there to handle them all. More than 90% of them will be landfilled or incinerated--or lost to the breeze during transportation and become litter anyway. (See the EPA's own data, fourth bullet under Just the Facts. That green box on the right side of the page might interest some of you as well.)
Thus we need to look at proposals that will target that "3 billion bags used" number. Reducing the amount of bags we use is the only way to truly reduce how much trash we produce, and how much litter blights our neighborhoods.
The Community Cleanup and Greening Act will be introduced next week. Stay tuned.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Recycling plastic increases consumption
"Plastic Fantastic Love," an article by Surfrider Foundation Hawaii manager Stuart Coleman, appeared in the Honolulu Weekly today. It gives a thorough explanation of the problem of plastics, and the threats it poses to marine life, public health, and a sustainable planet.
It also includes this excellent quote from Oregon Surfrider activist (and my friend) Stiv Wilson:
Emphasis mine.
It also includes this excellent quote from Oregon Surfrider activist (and my friend) Stiv Wilson:
“Though we believe that material recovery in the waste stream is important, plastic recycling is not the ultimate solution,” says Stiv Wilson, a journalist and ocean activist who worked with the Surfrider Foundation to help pass bag bans in the Pacific Northwest. “Industry, by their own admission, can’t make a bag out of a bag. It takes 70 percent virgin plastic to create a new bag, which means all we’re doing by plastic recycling is creating more, not less plastic in the world, while giving the average, good intentioned citizen the illusion of progress. This is precisely why industry pushes plastic recycling–it’s a guaranteed increase in consumption, but it ultimately does nothing to reduce the amount of plastic garbage entering the ocean.”
Emphasis mine.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Two Articles Worth a Read
A couple of good articles have crossed my Twitter feed in the past week. (Follow @TrashFreeMD for regular updates!)
First, our friends in Oregon are working to pass a statewide bag ban. This effort follows on a successful campaign to ban plastic bags in Portland. Sightline Daily posted a story last week, Three (Unexpected) Reasons to Support Oregon's Plastic Bag Ban. Among several good points, the article describes the problem bags are for recyclers. That's right--while industry opponents claim we can solve the state's litter problem by just increasing recycling, the people who actually do the recycling say the bags cost them money:
The second article comes from the Earth Island Journal and its blog, the EnvironmentaList. Writer Amy Westervelt examines the parallels between the campaigns waged by Big Tobacco in the 80s and 90s, and the campaigns mounted now by "Big Plastic," namely the American Chemistry Council and other lobbyists representing plastics manufacturers. Big Plastic is filing lawsuits to fight successful legislation efforts, pushing for de minimus clauses in regulatory legislation like limits on BPA content in baby bottles, and pushing for citizen's "rights" to a product that ultimately harms them and the world around them.
But Big Plastic's other tactic is more insidious: using environmental messaging to continue a wasteful and toxic practice of continued consumption of single-use plastics.
The American Chemistry Council was one of the lead sponsors of last week's 5th International Marine Debris Conference, a gathering of 400 professionals and activists seeking ways to prevent ever more trash from collecting in our oceans' gyres and on our coastlines. While they purported to support efforts to reduce this pollution, they also took to Twitter to attack data from Washington, DC's bag fee experience.
Of course they don't want to reduce our use of plastics any more than Philip Morris wanted us to buy fewer cigarettes. But by appearing to be socially responsible, whether through sponsoring these events or providing ashtrays to community groups, they both can blunt some of the criticism they've earned for propagating dangerous products.
First, our friends in Oregon are working to pass a statewide bag ban. This effort follows on a successful campaign to ban plastic bags in Portland. Sightline Daily posted a story last week, Three (Unexpected) Reasons to Support Oregon's Plastic Bag Ban. Among several good points, the article describes the problem bags are for recyclers. That's right--while industry opponents claim we can solve the state's litter problem by just increasing recycling, the people who actually do the recycling say the bags cost them money:
Closer to home, plastic bags have been a real problem for recyclers. The bags clog up recycling machinery so badly that one Oregon-based recycler recently estimated that 20 to 30 percent of their total labor costs were related to plastic bags -- pulling them from the rest of the recycling stream, untangling them from their equipment, and stopping all work when bags clog up the machines -- and about 7 percent of otherwise recyclable paper has to be landfilled because of plastic contamination. So plastic bags in the recycling stream likely undermine the effectiveness of recycling efforts overall.
The second article comes from the Earth Island Journal and its blog, the EnvironmentaList. Writer Amy Westervelt examines the parallels between the campaigns waged by Big Tobacco in the 80s and 90s, and the campaigns mounted now by "Big Plastic," namely the American Chemistry Council and other lobbyists representing plastics manufacturers. Big Plastic is filing lawsuits to fight successful legislation efforts, pushing for de minimus clauses in regulatory legislation like limits on BPA content in baby bottles, and pushing for citizen's "rights" to a product that ultimately harms them and the world around them.
But Big Plastic's other tactic is more insidious: using environmental messaging to continue a wasteful and toxic practice of continued consumption of single-use plastics.
There are several examples of this, but the most insidious are the industry's use of recycling as a justification for the continued use of disposable plastics, and its sponsorship of various research expeditions and conferences around ocean plastic pollution (which it euphemistically calls "marine debris").
The American Chemistry Council was one of the lead sponsors of last week's 5th International Marine Debris Conference, a gathering of 400 professionals and activists seeking ways to prevent ever more trash from collecting in our oceans' gyres and on our coastlines. While they purported to support efforts to reduce this pollution, they also took to Twitter to attack data from Washington, DC's bag fee experience.
Of course they don't want to reduce our use of plastics any more than Philip Morris wanted us to buy fewer cigarettes. But by appearing to be socially responsible, whether through sponsoring these events or providing ashtrays to community groups, they both can blunt some of the criticism they've earned for propagating dangerous products.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Baltimore Rolls Out a New Voluntary Ban on Plastic Bags
The Sun's B'More Green has an article today about Baltimore's new program, where stores, in essence, voluntarily ban plastic bags. Stores that wish to continue distributing single-use plastic bags must be registered with the city, ask each customer if they want a bag (rather than automatically using one), and offer recycling of bags on location. Enforcement is handled by city health inspectors, since they are already at the stores and eateries for food regulation requirements.
It sounds pretty convoluted, but I'm curious to see if this works. China has a poorly enforced ban on plastic bags that actually has reduced use by upwards of 50%. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that simple peer pressure (i.e., the checker asking if a customer wants a bag) is surprisingly effective in reducing waste. But so far about a third of Baltimore's retailers--likely mostly large chains--have declared that they like single-use plastic, which is discouraging when so many alternatives are available. And the rollout of this program has not been smooth:
At any rate, hopefully it's a start. And if it doesn't accomplish the goals of the Office of Sustainability, hopefully they'll pursue stronger, more effective solutions.
It sounds pretty convoluted, but I'm curious to see if this works. China has a poorly enforced ban on plastic bags that actually has reduced use by upwards of 50%. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that simple peer pressure (i.e., the checker asking if a customer wants a bag) is surprisingly effective in reducing waste. But so far about a third of Baltimore's retailers--likely mostly large chains--have declared that they like single-use plastic, which is discouraging when so many alternatives are available. And the rollout of this program has not been smooth:
City officials didn't get the online registration system set up until shortly before the ordinance was to take effect on Sept. 1, and many merchants complained they hadn't been able to log in so they could legally keep giving out plastic bags. Others said they simply didn't know anything about what they were supposed to do. An embarrassed City Council was forced to delay the law's startup.
At any rate, hopefully it's a start. And if it doesn't accomplish the goals of the Office of Sustainability, hopefully they'll pursue stronger, more effective solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)