Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Groundbreaking Legislation Would Help U.S. 'Break Free From Plastic'

Politics
Groundbreaking Legislation Would Help U.S. 'Break Free From Plastic'
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) discusses the introduction of the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 in Washington, DC. Michael Brochstein / Echoes Wire / Barcroft Media / Getty Images

The world is in the midst of a plastic pollution crisis, and the current U.S. waste management system is not dealing with it effectively. Only eight percent of plastic waste in the U.S. is actually recycled. The rest is incinerated, landfilled or shipped overseas to countries even less equipped to process it, where it risks joining the eight million metric tons of plastic that end up in the world's oceans every year.


That's why Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) introduced the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 Tuesday, a comprehensive piece of legislation that is being hailed as a first-of-its-kind attempt to address the root causes of the crisis on the national level.

"Our bill is a game-changer—the first bill to comprehensively tackle the plastic crisis," Udall said in a press call Monday.

The bill has several ground-breaking components.

  1. It requires plastic producers to take responsibility for their waste. The bill would shift the burden of waste collection and management from local governments and taxpayers to the manufacturers of items like packaging, containers, food service products and paper, who would be charged with designing and funding recycling systems.
  2. It establishes a nation-wide beverage container refund system. Anyone buying a beverage container of any type would be charged an extra 10 cents that would be refunded when they returned the empty item.
  3. It phases out the most polluting single-use plastics. Starting in Jan. 2022, highly polluting items like plastic bags, polystyrene containers and plastic stirrers and cutlery would be phased out. Straws would only be available by request. The bill would also introduce a nationwide plastic bag fee.
  4. It mandates minimum recycled content. The bill would require products to be made with increasing percentages of recycled material. For example, plastic bottles would need to be made of 25 percent recycled material by 2025 and 80 percent by 2040.
  5. It considers environmental justice. The bill would prohibit the U.S. from shipping waste to countries that cannot manage it. It would only be able to export waste to countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and only with their consent. Further, it puts a pause of up to three years on the granting of permits for facilities that create plastic so that the Environmental Protection Agency can update its safe air and water standards for these facilities.

Lowenthal said he and Udall had been working on crafting the legislation for about a year.

"First and foremost, the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act removes the burden of waste collection and recycling from the cities, from states, and, most importantly, from taxpayers, and puts it where it belongs: on the producers and the companies putting out these unsustainable products into the marketplace," Lowenthal said in Monday's press call.

This distinguishes it from previous legislative attempts to deal with plastic waste, such as the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which passed the Senate in January. That act focuses more on plastic already in the environment and puts the onus for recycling and cleanup on the government, rather than on producers.

The new bill has won widespread approval from environmental groups, many of whom worked with Udall and Lowenthal's offices to develop it.

"It's high time for companies to do more than just say they will recycle. Plastic pollution has become one of the greatest threats to our oceans. This bill would finally tackle the plastic crisis at its source by reducing the amount produced in the first place, and encouraging a shift to refillable and reusable alternatives," Oceana chief policy officer Jacqueline Savitz said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch. "We need to turn off the faucet, not just run for the mop."

Yvette Arellano, policy and research grassroots advocate at Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, praised the bill for its attention to the health impacts of plants that convert fossil fuels to plastics, which especially impact low-income communities of color in Texas and along the Gulf Coast.

"I really want to thank the Senator and the Representative for this, not ambitious, but common sense piece inside of this act. It's very meaningful for us to maintain that human health is being impacted in our most vulnerable communities," she said during the press call.

"It's a link we rarely see being made," she added.

With its pause on new plastics plants and its shift of responsibility to producers, one might expect the new bill to meet resistance from the plastics industry. But the bill's sponsors and supporters do not expect this to stymie their efforts.

Udall said he and Lowenthal had spoken with industry actors while writing the bill, and incorporated some of their ideas.

Scott Cassel, founder and chief executive officer of the Product Stewardship Institute, said in a press call that he had worked with the plastics industry for 20 years.

"Producers have a pattern of how they will oppose things in the beginning and then will come to the table," he said.

He added that attempts to deal with the plastic pollution issue on the state and local level had led to a regulatory patchwork that created a "headache" for producers, meaning there might be an appetite for the comprehensive national approach proposed by the new bill.

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less