With Only 9% of All Plastic Recycled, Break Free From Plastic Calls Out Hypocrisy of “America Recycles Day”

With Only 9% of All Plastic Recycled, Break Free From Plastic Calls Out Hypocrisy of “America Recycles Day”


November 14, 2019

Contact: Claire Arkin, claire@no-burn.org, 510-883-9490 ext: 111

Berkeley, CA — Tomorrow, on the industry-backed, “America Recycles Day,” people across the country will be participating in clean-up activities, and pledging to recycle more. At the same time, Break Free From Plastic leaders will be getting arrested on Fire Drill Friday to call attention to environmental injustice, climate change, failing recycling systems, and waste dumping scandals, while demanding that corporations reduce the production of plastics, instead of focusing on cleaning it up after the fact.

Keep America Beautiful, the non-profit organization behind America Recycles Day, is funded by some of the biggest corporate polluters (Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Pepsi) according to the recent global brand audit report, and has a history of sabotaging plastic reduction legislation while blaming consumers for the plastic pollution crisis– taking the heat off the corporations who are creating it in the first place.

Instead of taking meaningful steps to phase out single-use plastic from their business models, corporate polluters uplift recycling as the primary solution to plastic waste. But while Americans are diligently recycling and attending clean-ups, the plastic industry is planning to quadruple plastic production by 2050. Meanwhile, only 9% of plastic ever made has been recycled.

Corporations’ over-reliance on recycling is actually undermining it. According to a group of mission-based recyclers including Ecology Center, Eco-cycle, Eureka Recycling, and Recycle Ann Arbor, “Our jobs are becoming harder and harder as major consumer brands flood the market with more and different types of single-use plastics and other disposable packaging, insisting that these items should be included in our recycling programs while doing little to nothing to actually make their products recyclable and recycled.” Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle only use 9%, 3%, and 2% recycled content in their products, respectively.

“Just like the fossil fuel industry, corporate polluters have been using recycling to justify ever-increasing production of single-use packaging, while taxpayers and cities are left to foot the bill. Lower income communities and communities of color, who are the hardest hit and the least responsible, bear the brunt of a model that has brought us to the brink of the waste and climate crisis,” said Denise Patel, US & Canada Program Director of GAIA.

Meanwhile, China’s effective ban on foreign post-consumer recycling imports has exposed the major flaws in our global recycling system, which has been shown to pollute communities in other parts of the world, particularly Asia.

“Plastic waste shipments supposedly for recycling are trashing poor villages and communities wherever they end up. Companies need to come clean on this one — they cannot continue to fool the public that has become acutely aware that the solution to the crisis lies in producing and using less plastic to begin with,” said Von Hernandez, Global Coordinator of Break Free from Plastic.

Fortunately,  communities and businesses across the world are working with local governments towards zero waste, including  alternative delivery systems like refill and reuse, organizing for improved  product redesign and implementing bans on a wide range of single-use disposables.

According to Patel, “We must think beyond recycling. A Green New Deal for Zero Waste will create millions of jobs that focus on reduction and reuse before recycling, bring innovative design and delivery systems for products built with cities, businesses, and communities coming together, and promote health and well-being instead of waste and injustice.”


Truth Behind the Trash: “America Recycles Day”

Truth Behind the Trash: “America Recycles Day”

What’s wrong with America Recycles Day? 

“America Recycles Day” and its host organization, Keep America Beautiful both have nice-sounding names, but that’s part of the problem. While the organization Keep America Beautiful seems like a friendly non-profit, in reality, it is an industry-sponsored group that lends public credibility to corporate interests. According to investigations including a recent exposé in The Intercept, packaging and beverage industries formed Keep America Beautiful in the 1950s to stop fledgling regulations on single-use disposables from spreading.

Through a series of ad campaigns spread out over decades —including the infamous “Crying Indian” commercial, which uses racist tropes about indigenous peoples to co-opt centuries of indigenous environmental stewardship and land struggles — the organization built a narrative around “litter” that diverts responsibility the growing plastic pollution problem away from corporations and onto individual consumers. America Recycles Day is an extension of this industry greenwashing. Keep America Beautiful’s corporate partners currently include some of the world’s top plastic polluters, including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle. Several of these have lobbied against much-needed waste reduction solutions, such as bottle deposit legislation and bans on single-use disposables. In positioning recycling as the ultimate solution to our waste problem, corporate producers have meticulously evaded responsibility for the waste they create by claiming their products are “recyclable.”

So Keep America Beautiful is a little dodgy… but recycling is still a good thing, right? 

Villagers pick through discarded imported plastic that was dumped there by a nearby paper recycling company whose imported paper was contaminated with plastic, in Sumengko Village, near Gresik, Surabaya, Indonesia on 21st February, 2019.

Even with the best available recycling technology, the maximum recycling level for the current mix of plastics produced be somewhere between 36% and 53%. Municipalities are burdened with the massive, costly task of collecting, sorting, and processing recycled waste. This task has become more difficult now that more and more Asian countries are following China’s lead in rejecting imports of American recyclables. Our recycling systems aren’t equipped to deal with the staggering volume of plastic waste produced in this country. Much of this discarded plastic waste, including multi-layered plastics (such as potato chip bags), is extremely difficult and costly to recycle. Since they can’t, in a practical sense, be recycled, they end up in landfills, incinerators, and the environment. Domestic end markets for recycled materials are lacking, partly because the shale fracking boom makes virgin plastic extremely cheap: Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Nestle only use 9%, 3%, and 2% recycled content in their products, respectivelyWe’ve only recycled 9% of all the plastics ever produced, while plastic production is expected to quadruple by 2050. Recycling is simply not enough. 

So should we even bother with recycling? 

Recycling is not enough, but that doesn’t mean we should forget about recycling altogether. We need to work with municipalities and mission-based recyclers to improve our recycling systems. Real recycling requires universal access to recycling and composting services, as well as education, outreach, and incentives to help people separate their waste correctly. Policymakers should also require producers to use minimum recycled content, which would be one of many initiatives required to boost local economies by building domestic markets for recycled materials.

We also need to make sure risky burn technologies promoted by some of Keep America Beautiful’s sponsors such as “chemical recycling” (usually meaning plastic-to-fuel) aren’t sold to cities as sustainable waste management strategies. “If it doesn’t protect our health and the environment and prevent the need for more resource extraction, it’s not recycling”, according to the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers.

If recycling isn’t enough, what is? 

Recycling is just one piece of a much larger puzzle that must include upstream solutions to reduce the amount of waste produced in the first place. Communities and businesses across the world are working with local governments to get their municipalities on the road towards zero waste: they’re supporting initiatives around reuse and refill, organizing around product redesign, implementing bans on single-use disposables, improving collection services, and much more. Visit zerowasteworld.org to find stories and case studies about these powerful, placed-based zero waste solutions that are supporting both environmental and social goals. Corporations need to play their part, too. They’ve profited by externalizing the costs of their waste onto our communities and environment for too long — it’s time to force them to take real, measurable actions towards reducing their waste and sustainably managing the end life of their products. Keep America Beautiful’s stated mission of inspiring and educating “people to take action every day to improve and beautify their community environment” is best exemplified by the global movement of sanitation workers, small businesses, sustainability departments, and community-based organizations working to Break Free From Plastic and build holistic solutions towards zero waste.


Loophole & delays undermine microplastics restriction

Loophole & delays undermine microplastics restriction

NGO letter to key decision makers reiterates support for restrictions on all intentionally added microplastics under the chemicals legislation, REACH.

For Immediate Release, Brussels

There are major concerns that proposed limitations to the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) restriction on intentionally added microplastics act as loopholes to satisfy industry, by delaying implementation and creating derogations for biodegradable plastics. Comments from the industry lobby in the ECHA public consultation on microplastics are aimed at undermining the core purpose of the restriction rather than contributing to meaningfully addressing the issue of microplastic pollution.

The latest European Chemicals Agency proposal to restrict all intentionally added microplastics has generally received strong support from NGOs across many sectors. In letters to national governments, 32 NGOs together with the #breakfreefromplastic movement of more than 1,800 organisations, and the Rethink Plastic alliance, reiterated this support, while raising major concerns on derogations and unnecessary delays in a letter addressed to national environment ministers and relevant agencies on Tuesday. They call on the Commission and Member States to address these concerns and move the restriction process forward without delays or derogations.

Once released in the environment, microplastics are practically impossible to remove, and are expected to be present in the environment for hundreds, possibly thousands, of years, with severe and well documented effects on the environment. The scientific data gathered by ECHA in the report backing the need for a restriction is unequivocal: microplastics constitute a serious risk to the environment, and are a source of pollution that is currently, and undeniably, out of control.

In particular proposed derogations for allegedly biodegradable microplastics and the extended transitional periods are highlighted as undermining the prevention of microplastic pollution, and lacking in scientific basis.

Elise Vitali, Chemicals Project Officer at the European Environmental Bureau said “The restriction proposal is a big step forward. But if passed as it stands, this plan would seriously jeopardise the EU’s reputation as a leader in the fight against plastic pollution. It is a matter of urgency that these unjustifiable loopholes are closed, and that the restrictions are applied to all intentional microplastics in a concise timeframe.”

Delphine Lévi Alvarès, Coordinator of the #breakfreefromplastic movement in Europe and of the Rethink Plastic alliance said “It is high time the industry stops bringing biodegradability claims to obtain exemptions and create loopholes in much needed restrictions, be it on single-use plastics or in this case on microplastics added to products. If it is even slightly serious about contributing to solving the plastic crisis, the industry should rather focus its efforts on redesigning and removing all intentionally added microplastics from Industry products”.



  1. Read the full letter sent to EU ENVI Committee members and REACH competent authorities
  2. Read the NGOs Position For An Impactful Restriction Of Microplastics
  3. ECHA Annex XV Restriction Report Proposal for a Restriction on Intentionally Added Microplastics


Press Contacts:

Matt Franklin

European Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic

matt@breakfreefromplastic.org – +44 7923 37 38 31

Alice Bernard

Chemicals Lawyer, Client Earth

ABernard@clientearth.org – 0032 (0)2 808 8015

Green groups to DENR: Stop being an apologist for the plastics industry!

Green groups to DENR: Stop being an apologist for the plastics industry!

Plastic Monster-in-the-box installations delivered at the DENR headquarters

Quezon City, Philippines (November 14, 2019) — Environmental groups belonging to the global #breakfreefromplastic movement today delivered monstrous plastic installations at the  Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to expose the agency’s hypocritical and pro-industry stance on plastic pollution. 

Representatives of environmental organizations Ecowaste Coalition, Greenpeace Philippines, GAIA Asia Pacific, Mother Earth Foundation, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Mga Mangangalakal sa Longos (NLM), and Samahan ng Mangangalakal ng Scrap sa Capulong (SMMC) delivered three monstrous  jack-in-the-box installations made out of single-use plastics bearing the names of the top corporate polluters found in recent brand audits conducted by local groups in the Philippines. The groups stressed that the delivery was intended to remind the DENR of its mandate to protect the environment and for the agency to stop serving as an apologist for the plastics industry and the companies who  profit from the extensive use of single-use and throwaway plastic packaging that often end up polluting and blighting waterways and ecosystems.

“By putting the blame on consumers and promoting false solutions such as waste-to-energy incineration technologies, and bioplastics, the DENR is  in effect promoting the agenda of an industry that wants to continue with their business as usual polluting practices. This makes the agency, mandated to safeguard our environment, actually complicit in perpetuating the plastic pollution crisis.  Plastic pollution is not a joking matter,” said Beau Baconguis, Asia-Pacific Coordinator of Break Free From Plastic and Plastics Campaigner of GAIA Asia Pacific. “The DENR should stop clowning around with its mandate and start offering real solutions to this crisis,” she added.

For his part, Jove Benosa, Ecowaste Coalition’s Zero Waste Campaigner, said: “DENR officials have been mouthing industry lines that products sold in sachets and other single-use plastics benefit the poor. In reality, the poor communities are the ones suffering from the impacts of plastic pollution. What is urgently needed now is a national ban on single-use plastics and packaging, as suggested by President Duterte himself.  In addition, the National Solid Waste Commission must release the long-overdue list of non-environmentally acceptable packaging and products.” 

Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner Abigail Aguilar added that the proposed national ban on single-use plastics should aim for a drastic reduction of the manufacture of single-use plastic products and packaging and their eventual elimination from the market. “Importantly, this ban must include the phaseout of sachet packaging,  and direct companies to redesign packaging for their products, and give incentives to reuse, refill, and other alternative delivery systems,” said Aguilar. 

Meanwhile, Maricon Alvarez, Program Manager, Mother Earth Foundation, called for strict implementation of RA 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. “In developing countries like the Philippines, our work with communities has demonstrated that Zero Waste is a practical, viable, and sustainable solution to our waste problem. Single-use plastics (SUPs) are the biggest enemy of communities aiming for Zero Waste as these can neither be recycled nor composted. Now, more than ever, is the perfect time to ban these problematic materials,” she said. 

This “people’s delivery” is part of #breakfreefromplastic’s Global Week of Action from November 6 to 15 this year. Following a series of brand audits held worldwide, #breakfreefromplastic recently revealed this year’s top corporate plastic polluters. #ends 


Notes to Editors: 

  1. BreakFree From Plastic’s Brand Audit 2019 results: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/globalbrandauditreport2019/
  2. DENR Undersecretary Benny Antiporda’s interview on ABS-CBN’s “Failon Ngayon” https://youtu.be/7rJw9TAvR_M



Break Free From Plastic movement is composed of 1,800 organizations worldwide demanding massive reductions in single-use plastics and  pushing for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. 



Jed Alegado, Communications Officer, Break Free From Plastic
jed@breakfreefromplastic.org | +63 917 607 0248

Sonia Astudillo, Communications Officer, GAIA Asia Pacific
sonia@no-burn.org | +63 917 596 9286

Opposition Letter to Save our Seas Legislation November 19

Opposition Letter to Save our Seas Legislation November 19

November 19, 2019

Re:  Opposition to Save our Seas 2.0, Senate bill 1982 

Dear Senators:

An editorial in the Newark Star Ledger got it exactly right with the headline:  “Our oceans are choking in plastic, and half measures are inadequate.” (October 29, 2019).  Millions of pounds of plastic pour into our treasured rivers, streams and the ocean every year.  We write in opposition to the Save Our Seas 2.0 legislation, which builds on the Save Our Seas law signed by President Trump last year.  This is a controversial bill that warrants some time on the Senate floor for careful consideration. We, the undersigned groups numbering over 100, urge you to oppose Unanimous Consent when Senate bill 1982 comes to the Senate floor.

While we appreciate Congressional attention to the growing problem of plastic pollution, this legislation does not provide an effective approach. Certain provisions may make the problem even worse.  We need Congress to pass legislation that reduces the generation of plastic, particularly single-use plastic packaging. Instead, this legislation has four major flaws.

This bill will do little to reduce the staggering amount of plastic polluting our streets, streams, shores and seas, as it does not curb upstream production or provide for a transition to reusable and refillable packaging.

The U.S., alone, created 35.4 million tons of plastic waste in 2017, most of it from single-use plastic packaging and products. This plastic is used for minutes, yet if it is littered or landfilled, it lasts in the environment for centuries. An effective plastics bill must reduce the generation of single-use plastic items – especially those that are the most common forms of plastic pollution.  This bill does not do that. 

Instead, it focuses on collecting small amounts of litter after the fact and attempts to prop up an anemic recycling system. For the past 30 years, the plastics industry has lulled Americans into thinking that recycling is the solution to the plastic problem. It is not. While recycling is essential for many materials including cardboard, paper, glass and metals, the highest recycling rate ever achieved for all plastics was 9.5% nationwide in 2014. The plastic recycling rate in 2017 dropped to 8.4%, and that was before China banned the importation of American recyclables. This means that over 90% of American plastics are landfilled, burned or discarded, posing a threat to public health and the environment.

Most importantly, eight of the top ten plastic pollution items found in the 2018 U.S. Coastal Cleanup were single-use plastic food and service items that have no waste material value and are not accepted by recyclers in the U.S. (Link to report). U.S. E.P.A. data shows that these single-use items have never been measurably recycled. Globally, Coca-Cola has been repeatedly identified as the Top Polluter in brand audit cleanups (Link to report) – and they admitted in their own disclosure last year to being solely responsible for nearly 1% of the worldwide demand for plastics.

In short, we cannot recycle our way out of the plastic pollution crisis.

We cannot solve climate change without reducing plastic pollution.

Second, plastic production is a major contributor to climate change. This bill will do virtually nothing to reduce the carbon emissions from plastic production facilities. Plastics have historically been made from chemicals and oil. Today, they are primarily made from chemicals and ethane – a by-product of hydrofracking. Dozens of new ethane cracker facilities have been proposed. If these facilities are built, they will serve as a major source of new carbon emissions. According to the American Chemistry Council, over $204 billion in capital investments have been announced for 334 new or expanded facilities linked to hydrofracking, with most of this money invested in facilities to produce plastic or plastic precursor chemicals.  

According to a recent report from several organizations in partnership with the Center for International Environmental Law, “Plastic and Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet” (Link to report), the link between plastics production and disposal and climate change is stark. If plastic production and use grow as currently planned, by 2030 these emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year – equivalent to the emissions released by more than 295 new coal-fired power plants. By 2050, the accumulation of these greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could reach over 56 gigatons – 10 to 13 percent of the global carbon budget by 2050. Moreover, communities living close to facilities which produce and incinerate plastic, disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color, will be exposed to dangerous levels of air toxins while the massive amounts of new greenhouse gases will make climate change even worse.

Spending Tax Dollars to Study False Solutions Wastes Valuable Time and Resources.

Third, should the chemical industry’s lobbying efforts succeed, the final bill will include previously removed language that directs the National Academies of Sciences or a federal agency to spend federal tax dollars and take years to study options to burn or process plastics through various high temperature incineration processes such as gasification, pyrolysis, waste to fuel and other risky approaches. The U.S. Department of Energy is already spending $7.6 million (Link here) to study these technologies. We do not need to spend more tax dollars on a new study to validate these technologies when we already know that they are fraught with environmental and health problems and are not economical at scale. We do not have time to go down the rabbit hole of false solutions, many of which have been proposed and have not worked for the past 30 years.

International Negotiations Should Focus on Reducing Plastic Pollution.

Fourth, while we appreciate the focus on international cooperation, this legislation does not recognize the explosion in plastic production that is underway and has no targets for reducing production of plastics intended for wasteful single-use applications. Instead, the focus is on “marine litter” and directs other countries to improve their waste management practices. The bill does not acknowledge that the U.S. has inadequate domestic waste management and recycling infrastructure and continues to export large amounts of unrecyclable plastics to other countries. This bill limits the U.S. policy direction in any new international agreement to only that of improving waste management and collection, discounting the considerable harms of plastic and plastic pollution along the entire life cycle. We must recognize that climate change, public health and marine impacts demand more action and leadership than admonishing other nations to do better. Rather than restricting our participation in comprehensive policy to solve the crisis, the U.S. should instead be leading with other countries to adopt measures to reduce the harms from plastics across its life cycle. Meanwhile, our government should be proactively incentivizing the innovation of refill and reuse solutions that will reduce the overall need for wasteful and harmful plastics. 

Public interest in plastic pollution has never been higher. Hundreds of local laws have been adopted in U.S. cities and communities that actually reduce plastic pollution. Ten states have had decades of success with container deposit laws, known as “bottle bills.” California is working towards adopting an effective plastic packaging reduction law. A small but growing number of businesses are reducing their plastic footprint. Globally, more than 127 nations have taken legal action to eliminate plastic pollution. The E.U. has banned single-use plastic items that are the most common forms of plastic pollution in their region. 

The chemical industry strongly supports the Save our Seas 2.0 legislation because it does virtually nothing to reduce single-use plastic production, even with the massive increase in greenhouse gases that accompany plastic production and various pyrolysis / gasification / incineration technologies.

We have been told to settle for this bill because the political climate in Washington does not allow for anything better. We disagree. The time has come to work on real solutions such as the policies that are included in the legislation soon to be introduced by Senator Udall and Representative Lowenthal.  

Half of all plastics ever made were made in the past 15 years. There are microplastic particles in the air we breathe and the food we eat. Scientists estimate that adults are consuming roughly a credit card’s worth (5 grams) of plastic particles per week. Legislation must go to the root of the plastic pollution crisis.

We would be happy to discuss these issues with you at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration.


Jeff Bridges, Actor

Jack Johnson, Musician/Activist

Bonnie Raitt, Musician

Alice Waters, Chef and Owner of Chez Panisse, Founder of the Edible Schoolyard Program, Berkeley, California

Jackson Browne, Musician and Ocean Elder

Gerry Lopez, Ocean Elder

Sven Lindblad, Ocean Elder

Kim Johnson, Kokua Hawaii Foundation President/Co-Founder

Judith Enck, Beyond Plastics, Bennington, Vermont

Bill McKibben, 350.org, Middlebury, Vermont

Casey Camp-Horinek, Ponca Tribe, Ponca City, Oklahoma          

Patricia Wood, Grassroots Environmental Education, Port Washington, New York

Christopher Chin, Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education, Oakland, California

Julie Teel Simmonds, Center for Biological Diversity, Boulder, Colorado

Elizabeth Moran, New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), Albany, New York

Jackie Nuñez, The Last Plastic Straw/ Plastic Pollution Coalition, Santa Cruz, California

Yvonne Taylor, Gas Free Seneca Watkins Glen, New York, New York

Joseph Campbell, Seneca Lake Guardian, a Waterkeeper Alliance Affiliate, Watkins Glen, New York, New York

Robin Schneider, Texas Campaign for the Environment, Austin, Texas

Tricia Cortez, Rio Grande International Study Center, Laredo, Texas

Tran Hoang, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Occidental, California

Nick Lapis, Californians Against Waste, Sacramento, California

Sandra Steingraber, PhD, Concerned Health Professionals of New York

Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA, Washington DC

Melissa Aguayo, The 5 Gyres Institute, Los Angeles, California

Meredith Faltin, Queens Climate Project, Jackson Heights, New York

Meryl Greer Domina, Circle Pines Center, Delton, Michigan

Denise Patel, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Berkeley, California

Debby Lee Cohen, Cafeteria Culture, New York, New York

Sharon Hoffmann, 350Merced Merced, California

Michael Green, Center for Environmental Health, Oakland, California

Joseph Wagner, Glens Falls, New York

Sarah Edwards, Plastic Free Waters Partnership, New York and New Jersey

Ana Baptista, The Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, New York, New York

Gary J Lessard, P.E. Schenectady, New York

Lynn Neuman, 350BK, Brooklyn, New York

Jill Jedlicka, Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, Buffalo, New York

Steven Feit, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Washington, DC

Bradley M. Campbell, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts

Diane Wilson, San Antonia Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper, Seadrift, Texas

Shilpi Chhotray, Break Free From Plastic, Oakland, California 

Mark Dunlea, Green Education and Legal Fund, Poestenkill, New York 

Karen MacWatters, Indivisible 518:Justice for All, Niskayuna, New York

Gary E Jennrich, Hinckley 350, Hinckley, Ohio

Jerry Rivers, North American Climate, Conservation and Environment (NACCE), Roosevelt, New York

Heather Trim, Zero Waste Washington, Seattle, WA

Mónica Weiss, 350NYC, New York, New York

Tracy Frisch, Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Greenwich, New York 

Ellen Connett, Fluoride Action Network, Binghamton, New York 

Mazeda Uddin, South Asian Fund For Education, Scholars Hip and Training, New York, New York 

Mary Biggs, Beloved Earth Community, Riverside Church, New York, New York

George Povall, All Our Energy, Point Lookout, New York 

Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC

Jennifer Scarlott, Bronx Climate Justice North, Bronx, New York 

Brook Lenker, FracTracker Alliance, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 

Mary Smith, Church Women United in New York State, Rochester, New York 

Scott Meyer, Don’t Waste Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

Justin Green, Big Reuse, Brooklyn, New York

Laura Haight, Partnership for Policy Integrity, Pelham, Massachusetts

Wayne Stinson, Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Cobleskill, New York

Melinda Gelder, Get REAL Counseling & Education, Port Angeles, Washington

Joseph Naham, Green Party of Nassau County, Long Beach, New York 

Mary-Alice Shemo, People for Positive Action, Plattsburgh, New York

Kate Kurera, Environmental Advocates of New York, Albany, New York

Emy Kane, Lonely Whale, Brooklyn, New York

Jan Dell, The Last Beach Cleanup, Laguna Beach, California

Susan Hughes-Smith, Rochester People’s Climate Coalition, Rochester, New York

Mandi Billinge, KIDS for the BAY, Berkeley, California

Hannah Testa, Hannah4Change, Cumming, Georgia 

Christine Pardee, Plastic Free Curriculum, Martin, Michigan

Shaina Kasper, Toxics Action Center Campaigns, Montpelier, Vermont

Nada Khader, WESPAC Foundation, White Plains, New York

Kei Williams, Peoples Climate Movement – NY, Brooklyn, New York

Alan Bentz-Letts, Beloved Earth Community, The Riverside Church, New York, New York

Sarah Doll, Safer States, Portland, Oregon

Lorraine Ruffing, Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition, Lake George, New York

Juan Parras, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Houston, Texas

Martha Torregrossa, Clean Air Action Network, Queensbury, New York

Doug Bullock, Solidarity Committee, Capital District, Albany, New York

Arthur Schwartz, NY Progressive Action Network, New York, New York

Laurie Valeriano, Toxic-Free Future, Seattle, Washington

Mary Beth Mylott, Bolton Coalition, Bolton Landing, New York

Christopher-Robin Healy, Warren County Zero Waste, Glens Falls, New York

Tessa Harber, Chevy Chase, Maryland

Jane Kana, Zero Waste Community, Queensbury, New York

Charlene Lemoine, Waukesha County Environmental Action League, Waukesha, Wisconsin

Goffinet McLaren, Chirping Birds Society, Pawleys Island, South Carolina

Julie Wash, Saratoga Unites, Inc., Saratoga Springs, New York

Lisa Adamson, Tricounty New York Transition, Glens Falls, Queensbury, Lake George, New York 

Mary Gutierrez, Earth Ethics, Inc., Pensacola, Florida

Sam Pearse, Story of Stuff Project, Berkeley, California

Teresa Kotturan, Sisters of Charity Federation, New York, New York

Ed Chadd, Olympic Climate Action, Port Angeles, Washington

Meryl Greer Domina, 359Kishwaukee, DeKalb, Illinoiis

Toni Jean, Lexington, Massachusetts 

Young Grguras, Post-Landfill Action Network, Philadelphia, PA

Wyldon King Fishman, New York Solar Energy Society, Bronx, New York

Matt Prindiville, UPSTREAM, Damariscotta, Maine

Liz Hitchcock, Safer Chemicals, Washington DC

Dianna Cohen, Plastic Pollution Coalition, Los Angeles, California 

Paul Burns, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Montpelier, Vermont

Alex Cole, The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Huntington, West Virginia 

Michael Schade, Mind the Store, Brooklyn, New York

Kathy Curtis, Clean and Healthy New York, Albany, New York

Michele Baker, New York Water Project, Hoosick Falls, New York

Drea Leanza, Troy Zero Waste, Troy, New York

Paul Tick, News from the Neighborhood, Bethlehem, New York 

Rebecca Newberry, Clean Air Coalition, Buffalo, New York

WordPress Video Lightbox Plugin