Plastics on Hurricane Alley

Plastics on Hurricane Alley

A post-Harvey development frenzy in Texas opens up another front in the fight against fossil fuels.

Written by . Article originally appeared in The Progressive.

A few times during our phone call, chirping from a gaggle of winged visitors threatens to drown out Errol Summerlin’s voice. He’s on his porch in Portland, Texas, describing a David-and-Goliath battle to stop the largest plastics plant in the world from being built on the same jut of land where Hurricane Harvey made landfall in 2017.

“I’m a big birder,” he tells me, noting how a mulberry tree in his yard encouraged some of the 400 species migrating along the Gulf Coast to stop for a snack. “From Baltimore Orioles to Summer Tanagers—you name it, they come by.”

Birding is both a welcome distraction and a driving force for Summerlin’s grassroots organizing, which has taken up much of his time since he learned in 2016 that a mysteriously named Project Yosemite was seeking a billion dollars in tax breaks, along with air and water permits, from the local school district, San Patricio County, and state officials.

“As we delved into who this was, and where they were building, outrage began to grow,” Summerlin recalls.

The project turned out to be a $10 billion collaboration between Dallas-based oil giant ExxonMobil and Saudi Arabian-owned SABIC, one of the world’s largest petrochemical manufacturers. They had requested tax abatements from the local school district on 1,400 acres of former farmland, next to what is now a wind farm, across from a low-income housing complex, and about a mile from Gregory-Portland High School.

There, the companies plan to erect an ethane “cracker,” an industrial facility used to break down liquified natural gas, derived from fracking, into ethylene and then refine the ethylene into polyethylene pellets. Pellets would be exported via a new 1,000-car rail yard or proposed shipping terminal, to be molded into plastic products like bottles and caps, food packaging, and trash bags.

New projects are part of a massive build-out of plastics infrastructure fueled by the shale-oil fracking boom.

Summerlin, a retired legal aid lawyer who leads the local group Portland Citizens United, began to realize the project was part of a massive build-out of plastics infrastructure fueled by the shale-oil fracking boom. It threatens to turn the Texas Gulf Coast region known as Hurricane Alley into one big fenceline community, with eight new crackers and fourteen new polyethylene plants planned by 2022. This includes two crackers that went online in 2017 between Ingleside and Freeport, not far from where he lives in Portland.

So Summerlin started strategizing with other Texans who are connecting their struggles—against oil drilling, fracking, petrochemical production, and ocean pollution—amid an urgent push to reduce emissions that hasten climate change. They see great potential in uniting various campaigns against oil and petrochemical operations by companies like Exxon-Mobil, with those holding Starbucks and Coca-Cola responsible for single-use plastic pollution.

“We all have a common nemesis, if you will,” says Summerlin.

In March of this year, Summerlin attended an invite-only “Break Free from Plastics” meeting in League City, on the outskirts of Houston, the sprawling megalopolis often called “the Petro Metro.” The nickname refers both to Houston’s car-centric culture and to the industrial areas around the Port of Houston where petrochemical refineries belch fumes into the air of neighborhoods populated mostly by low-income people of color.

Just a few miles east, Baytown is dotted with more petrochemical production plants—including a 3,400-acre ExxonMobil refinery and chemical complex that was ordered by a federal judge in 2017 to pay a nearly $20 million penalty for illegally emitting ten million pounds of what the Sierra Club summarizedas “carcinogens, other toxic air pollutants, and respiratory irritants like sulfur dioxide and ozone-forming chemicals.” The following year, the corporation completed a new cracker at the same site as part of its overall $20 billion Growing the Gulf initiative.

All of this made Houston an eye-opening location for the gathering, the first of its kind in North America. Participants got a “toxic tour” of fenceline communities from residents who are also organizers with t.e.j.a.s., Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services. They emphasized a strategic framework that all people have a right to equal protection of where they live and work, and a right to participate in decisions that impact them.

“Our guiding principle is that every-one, regardless of race or income, is entitled to live in a clean environment,” the group says on its website.

“We are fighting for the legacy of Texas, a word that comes to us from the Caddo Indian Nation and means friend or ally,” adds Bryan Parras, who co-founded t.e.j.a.s. and is now Gulf Coast organizer for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Initiative. “That’s what we’re doing now, making allies to protect the state from further devastation.”

Activists engaged in direct action to stop new pipeline projects also attended, along with a Greenpeace researcher who had spent months at sea collecting water samples and documenting heavy plastic contamination. (Scientists predict that, by 2050, the weight of plastic in the oceans will exceed that of fish.) Summerlin said these new details “broadened our focus” when he shared them with Portland Citizens United.

“Previously, we talked about environmental and local impacts and really didn’t focus on the fact that Exxon was making plastics and pellets to be exported,” he recalls. “We didn’t look at its global impact.” On his return, he posted on the group’s Facebook page that the Portland-Gregory area, now known as a place to watch endangered whooping cranes, might soon be considered “the plastics capital of the world.”

“It gave us other angles to respond to those who say, ‘You guys don’t care about jobs. You drive your cars and you fill up your gas tank and you’re releasing emissions’—that kind of argument,” Summerlin recalls. “We started responding: Yes we do, but this plant won’t produce gas for our cars or heat for our homes. This is plastic pellets they’ll sell to manufacturers in China who sell plastic products to developing countries that end up in the ocean. Where is the gas production in that?”

Other powerful hurricanes like Rita, Ike, and Katrina have hit the Gulf Coast, but Harvey was the first to strike since the petrochemical industry launched its expansion, and it had a major impact when it stalled over Houston’s petrochemical hubs. For example, the National Weather Service reported a North American record of 51.88 inches of rain fell on Cedar Bayou in Baytown, which forced Chevron Phillips Chemical to shut down its Cedar Bayou facility after it was swamped by flood water. The storm also delayed, but didn’t stop, Chevron from starting up a new ethane cracker at the same complex this past March as part of its U.S. Gulf Coast Petrochemicals Project.

In August, a People’s Tribunal on Hurricane Harvey Recovery examined how climate change and the storm’s impact have exacerbated pre-existing problems like Houston’s lack of zoning, which enables the concentration of polluting facilities in certain areas.

“Instead of NIMBY [Not In My Back Yard] we have what’s called PIBBY—Place In Black’s Back Yard, or Place In Brown’s Back Yard,” said Robert Bullard, a professor and former dean at Texas Southern University, the historically black school that hosted the event. “A lot of it has to do with race.”

Bullard, often referred to as “the father of environmental justice,” has authored books like Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color and The Wrong Complexion for Protection: How the Government Response to Disaster Endangers African American Communities. He spoke at the panel along with two Latinx organizers, including Yudith Nieto, who described the plight of immigrant communities who struggle with daily pollution from a Valero refinery that got worse when Harvey hit.

“Every hurricane season my family gets really nervous,” said Nieto, who grew up in an east Houston area known as Manchester. She recalled how her parents were “trapped in Manchester under this toxic plume” during the storm and felt sick afterward. “We are surrounded by industry so a lot of the time the industries lose power and they malfunction during rains and during the hurricanes, so there is a lot of emissions after and during the events.”


When a chemical facility is forced to shut down quickly, it flares or burns excess gases it can’t process. Complaints from residents about massive gas flares and chemical smells were common topics on social media during Harvey. Dramatic news reports also thrust the industry’s mishaps into the spotlight. Residents of La Porte along the ship channel were told to shelter-in-place after a pipeline leak, and several facilities saw crude oil, benzene, toluene, and volatile organic compounds released when floating roofs on storage tanks sank during the heavy rains.

But it was Arkema’s plant in Crosby, Texas, that drew the most concern. There, trailers storing organic peroxides used to make plastics caught fireamid “explosions and black smoke” after the complex lost power and backup units could no longer refrigerate them as the site flooded with six feet of water. Local officials warned residents in a 1.5-mile radius to evacuate, and seven first responders later sued Arkema for causing them “severe bodily injuries” by failing to properly prepare despite several days’ notice.

In March, a Harris County grand jury indicted Arkema, along with its Chief Executive Officer Richard Rowe and Plant Manager Leslie Comardelle, in what could be a bellwether case. They face up to five years in prison if convicted on felony charges of recklessly emitting pollutants into the air during the storm, and the company could be ordered to pay up to a $1 million penalty.

Federal and state air monitors in the area claim they did not detect levels of emissions harmful to human health during and after Harvey. But a Houston Chronicle analysis of self-reporting from industrial plants to state environmental officials documented nearly 4,000 tons of unpermitted air pollution from seventy-five industrial sources. The releases exceeded state limits but were allowed under a waiver enacted by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, that remained in place until this past April, after months of protest.

Texans opposed to the expansion of the fossil fuel industry face an extremely well-funded opponent with friends in the media, as well as government officials eager to tout job creation and take donations.

Despite its reporting on how companies leaked chemicals during the storm, the Houston Chronicle ran a post-Harvey piece proclaiming that Houston “needs petrochemicals more than ever.” It argued those same facilities “make the building blocks for our homes, and without them, recovering from a hurricane would be impossible.” The article called the newest facilities “extremely efficient and environmentally responsible.”

The Greater Houston Partnership, essentially the local chamber of commerce, has predicted the growth in plastics exports from the Gulf Coast will create 10,000 local jobs by early next decade. The University of Houston’s Energy Advisory Board consists entirely of “thought leaders” from the oil and gas industry. Its chief energy officer, Ramanan Krishnamoorti, argued before Harvey’s floods had even drained that the storm “should not become the clarion call for a move of the chemicals industry out of Houston or the larger Gulf Coast.” Instead, he touted the “significant improvements that have come about in the petrochemical industry and its impact on human prosperity.”

The Exxon-Saudi coalition has also spread its wealth around while trying to build in Portland. It promised 600 permanent jobs in addition to those created by their new plant’s construction, supported by a $100,000 donation to local career and technical education programs; it even donated $90,000 to area environmental groups as part of its Good Neighbor Program that claims to support environmental stewardship. A press release listed recipients like the National Audubon Society “for their work to preserve local Whooping Crane habitats,” as well as the University of Texas Marine Science Institute in order to help in Hurricane Harvey recovery.

“During this very active year for our Wildlife Rescue and Recovery program, this gift comes at a particularly important time for us,” said Tom Schmid, president and chief executive officer of the Texas State Aquarium, a $40,000 beneficiary.

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, scientists say the planet’s remaining fossil fuels must be kept in the ground. But the boom in plastics production relies on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of oil or natural gas from deep in the earth. The Obama Administration encouraged fracking in the state’s vast Permian Basin and many other shale fields as a way to achieve U.S. energy independence. These days, the Trump Administration has maintained close ties with Saudi Arabia, tried to deregulate the industry, and approved new pipeline infrastructure to enable more exports.

According to Priscilla Villa, the South Texas organizer for Earthworks, “Plastics shows how issues go beyond silos and intersect.”

She says lower-carbon fracked gas was first touted as a “bridge fuel” to help shift reliance from coal-fired power plants to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. But research has shown that fracking wells leak massive quantities of methane gas, which is eighty-six times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a twenty-year span. A Texas Commission on Environmental Quality agent responding to complaints became ill after using an infrared camera to document emissions otherwise invisible to the human eye.

Below ground, fracking uses a mixture of water and chemicals to drill, and residents worry it could both contaminate and exhaust their already limited drinking supply. Permian Basin operators used nearly 58 billion gallons of water to frack and drill in 2017—eight times the 6.8 billion consumed in 2011. State records showed in August that more than eighty public water systems in the West Texas Permian Basin asked—or required—customers to limit water use because of drought.

Back on the coast, Portland Citizens United and the Sierra Club are disputingwater and air permits the state issued for ExxonMobil and SABIC’s new steam-powered cracker, which will use an estimated 7.3 billion gallons of water each year. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved a wastewater permit to discharge millions of gallons of polluted water into the area’s bays and watersheds. In October, it also authorized a draft permit to build a seawater desalination plant local officials say would address potential water shortages.

But concerned residents note that out of the 150 million gallons the plant would take in per day, just 50 million gallons of freshwater would be produced and the rest discharged. They also fear a hurricane could damage or even destroy the plant. Meanwhile, a new battle has erupted over plans to build a deepwater export terminal near the site of what is now the dock for a tourist ferry to visit the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge or Padre Island National Seashore.

On a recent trip dubbed the#TexasFenceline tour, Summerlin joined activists who visited a Formosa Plastics cracker and refining complex in Point Comfort, less than an hour’s drive from Portland. He says the massive jumble of tanks and pipelines and flares as they approached were “ominous looking,” but what shocked him most were the discarded plastic pellets he saw everywhere along the beaches and even the streets. The group picked up bagfuls of these poisonous pellets to keep them from being eaten by fish and threatened bird species like the Red Knot or Piping Plover. “It was a real eye opener to see it in person,” he says.

In October, at one of its largest meetings to date, Portland Citizens United formed a new alliance with other groups to try to stop the petrochemical industry’s buildout. Summerlin says eight groups are already on board, and he anticipates more will join soon, because “folks have finally realized these guys are not going to stop.”


Please follow and like us:
Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance- STRONG SUPPORT

Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance- STRONG SUPPORT

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,


Thank you for your leadership on Zero Waste issues. I am writing to express Break Free From Plastic’s strong support of the Single Use Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction, Item #27 on the December 11th City Council meeting agenda. The ordinance represents a brave and necessary step forward in tackling plastic waste and pollution.

We are at a pivotal moment in time. Cities all across the country are drowning in single-use foodware and packaging – primarily plastic – which is costly to clean up, impactful on the local business districts, likely to pollute the marine environment, and often incompatible with municipal recycling or composting systems. If Berkeley is to reach the 75% diversion from landfill goal of AB 341, it will have to do more than recycle and compost. Similarly, to achieve the storm-water permit requirements established by the state and regional water boards, Berkeley and other jurisdictions will need to do more than capture and clean up trash. To reach our goals, a prevention and source reduction approach is needed, targeting the most problematic materials.

Berkeley has a long history of leading waste reduction strategies like the polystyrene ban of 1986 and the Carryout Bag Reduction legislation, which was adopted by Alameda County and has since become state law. It’s time for Berkeley to take another strong stand. Addressing the over-use of disposable foodware is a vital step towards improving both human and environmental health.

This ordinance represents a comprehensive approach: it includes the increasingly popular “straws and utensils on request” policies being enacted in many other cities, with more mandatory measures to move away from a throw-away culture to one where reusable, durable food and beverage containers are the norm. This ordinance will set a new global standard for reducing disposable foodware while bringing many benefits to the business community.

We strongly urge you to vote yes to adopt this ordinance and the associated referrals to the City Manager. It is the right thing for Berkeley, and the right thing for the planet.


Shilpi Chhotray
Senior Communications Officer (based in Berkeley, California)


Please follow and like us:
Give me Convenience or Give Me Death

Give me Convenience or Give Me Death

Written by Stiv Wilson. Article originally posted in Story of Stuff.

At this point in modern life, we likely touch plastic more than we touch our loved ones.  Plastic has become a ubiquitous symbol of globalization. Most of us have a limited relationship to this material, experiencing it only from purchase to disposal.  But there is a whole story that exists before and after when we come into contact with it, and that’s the real Story of Plastic.

One of the most common misconceptions about plastic is its recycling value, but the story there is nuanced. Recycled plastics don’t have much value, especially given our rising levels of virgin plastic production. What’s more, not all plastic is created alike, and plastics with little or no recycling value are likely to end up poisoning people and the environment. For the most part, countries in the developed world pass off this burden to developing nations. We simply can’t recycle our way out of this problem.

We wanted to see where low value plastic recycled in the US and other developed countries ends up. That curiosity took us to Indonesia, and what we found was startling.

We throw all sorts of plastic into our recycling bins, which then gets sorted at big, automated recycling facilities. In this process, flat plastic often gets mistaken for paper and ends up in huge bales of recycled paper. These bales as loaded into shipping containers and exported to countries with fewer environmental controls and cheap labor to be recycled into new paper and cardboard products. At the paper plants in countries like Indonesia, the flat plastic “contaminants” are sorted out by hand.

The problem is that the onslaught of these exports is near constant, so all that plastic ends up being dumped in open fields and neighborhoods where an informal sector of wastepickers sort through it for materials that can earn them money from the recycling operators in country. They make about $1.50 a day sorting through these mountains of plastic waste for recyclables like flattened aluminum cans and beverage bottles. And because the trucks of plastic never stop, they continue to look only for the highest-value materials. The rest of the plastic – ”residuals” like snack wrappers, bags, and other scraps – could technically be recycled (for the most part), it has so little value that it’s not worth it even for someone making just $1.50 a day to pick it up.

Places like this, in Surabaya, Indonesia, are the end of the line for plastic from all over the world. To get rid of the onslaught of plastic that keeps coming from places like the US, The European Union, and Australia, it’s openly burned or used as fuel in local neighborhood tofu factories. The ash is full of toxics and is dumped without any control, often adjacent to rivers and rice fields. The unfiltered smoke from hundreds of stacks goes straight into the air.

In other neighborhoods in this area, the residual plastic separated from the paper is dumped in communities willing to sort it for a few extra dollars to augment rice farming and other small-scale industries. The result is a surreal landscape of litter, with hills of waste and the occasional tree sticking through a floor of plastic so thick you can’t see the ground. Here, too, the plastic is burned to make room for more, sending dioxins and heavy metals straight into the soil and water table. The smell of burning plastic is omnipresent, and induces headaches and sore throats within minutes of stepping out of car. There is little public health data in places like rural Indonesia, but I can say anecdotally there’s something in plain view that’s hard to stomach: there are few old people. People in these communities don’t seem to live long lives. They are choking on plastic and its poisonous fumes.

It’s easy to look at this sort of practice out of context and blame a country like Indonesia for ‘bad management.’ But what’s missing from the dialogue is that the current global system of plastic consumption and disposal depends on this reality.  If poor people in other countries weren’t sorting out the few valuable materials and burning the rest of our Trader Joe’s packaging and water bottle wrappers, the recycling systems in developed world countries would economically collapse.

It’s easy to look at this sort of practice out of context and blame a country like Indonesia for ‘bad management.’ But what’s missing from the dialogue is that the current global system of plastic consumption and disposal depends on this reality.  If poor people in other countries weren’t sorting out the few valuable materials and burning the rest of our Trader Joe’s packaging and water bottle wrappers, the recycling systems in developed world countries would economically collapse.

This environmental horror is one of the main reasons China announced that it would no longer take our waste. That alone has drastically affected the economics of recycling globally, but also created a race to the bottom where developed world countries are desperately trying to find new places to dispose of our waste. In a sense, this system is designed this way, not necessarily by any one evil specter, but more from a series of bad ideas that have become an entrenched system that is hard to change.

Luckily, in all the places where these problems exist, there are people fighting back, working to change the system. They’re working to stop waste imports and ban low- and no-value plastics from their communities. But we in privileged societies also have an obligation to work in solidarity with people in developing countries and to push back at the convenience industrial complex that created this mess in the first place. That means organizing against corporations like Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever who profit from this model. It means passing strong policies aimed at reducing the amount of plastic in the system and making companies responsible for the waste that their products leave behind.

The Story of Plastic will show not only what this hidden global system looks like, but also how a global movement is rising up to fix it. It not only can be done, it must be done.

Please follow and like us:
A Global Response to the Global Plastic Crisis

A Global Response to the Global Plastic Crisis

Originally posted here

We are overwhelmed by plastic pollution. This is the last call to save the planet.

by: Claudia Fiorella Santonocito, Geneva-based intern of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)

Marine plastic pollution is now under the magnifying glass of a group of experts tasked with recommending a global response to the plastics crisis. Here’s what to expect at their meeting next week.

Plastics are a product of the fossil fuel industry. Not only is the fossil fuel industry the most polluting industry in the world and largely responsible for climate change; it’s also driving the plastics boom.

Indeed, between 5 and 13 million tons of virgin plastic are contaminating our oceans each year. (In total, an estimated 8,300 million tons of virgin plastics have been produced to date.) But despite growing attention to the issue, plastic production is expected to grow by 33% by 2025, with dramatic consequences for human health and the environment.

So far, many fragmented initiatives have been promoted to address marine plastic pollution, but a lack of coordination and legally binding commitments have undermined their effectiveness. To truly address the problem of plastic pollution, we have to start at its source — fossil fuels — and address plastic throughout its entire lifecycle. Clearly, there are no easy solutions for addressing the plastic pollution crisis. That’s why we must act now to reduce, reuse, and redesign plastics at the global level.

How is the global community addressing the plastic pollution crisis?

The UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) — the highest political forum on environmental matters, involving all 193 member states of the United Nations — has set into motion discussions on how the world will tackle plastic pollution. In December 2017, UNEA established a group of experts to present options for combating marine plastic litter and microplastics. Among other things, this group is tasked with identifying ways to address the plastic problem and determining how feasible and effective those different options will be.

What will the Expert Group work on next week?

Building on the outcomes of its first meeting in May, the Expert Group will meet in Geneva, Switzerland, on December 3-7 to provide concrete recommendations for addressing legal, financial, and technological barriers to combating marine plastic litter and microplastics from all sources. The group of experts, with representatives from member States, international and regional conventions, NGOs, and other relevant stakeholders, is tasked with identifying a wide array of options for tackling plastic pollution as a global community.

Why a new global convention on plastic pollution is needed

None of the 18 international environmental agreements or 36 regional environmental agreements are primarily tailored to address marine plastic pollution, according to a UNEP assessment. Because of the urgency and complexity of the plastics crisis a new, a comprehensive treaty is needed to adequately and effectively address plastic pollution in addition to implementing other conventions and develop shorter term national and regional initiatives.

For this reason, the Expert Group is expected to adopt a shared vision on this issue and may include a request to UNEA for further commitment to pursuing a treaty. CIEL will be at the meeting, coordinating a global civil society task force composed of experts, academics, and other NGOs to push the process towards a new convention on plastic pollution.

Four pillars for a convention on plastic pollution

CIEL and our partners have developed a thought starter on what such a convention should cover and what it could look like. In that respect, it is critical to consider the full impact of plastics, beyond just marine waste. Plastics and microplastics have been found not just in our oceans, but also in our freshwater, soil, and air. In fact, they disperse and accumulate much faster in soil and freshwater environments than in the ocean, having deep impacts on human health.

CIEL and our partners propose an international convention based on four pillars:

The convention should aim to strengthen cooperation among different governing bodies and better coordination of rules from the main pollution-oriented conventions.

The convention should include measures to reduce plastic pollution (such as reducing and restricting the production of certain polymers and toxic additives, and banning single-use plastics and packaging) and to harmonize legislation and standards for labeling and product design.

The legal framework should include a mechanism for providing financial support for developing countries to implement the agreement, taking inspiration from the successful experience of the Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Layer, which aimed to reduce emissions responsible for destroying the ozone layer. The convention should set up a multilateral fund, similar to the one set up under the Montreal Protocol, to help developing countries start projects to reduce plastic pollution and to cover implementation costs.

The convention should provide technical support in order to ensure informed, science-based decision-making and avoid false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. This could include knowledge exchange networks, as well as scientific and economic committees or ad hoc scientific and economic groups, both of which would draw upon experts from academia, industry, and civil society.

Join us!

More than 90 organizations have already joined us in asking UNEA4 to advance the process for a future free from plastic pollution. We want to give a strong signal to delegates that there is massive support to address the roots of plastic pollution. If you are an organization interested in signing on, click here to join us!

Please follow and like us:
Plastics industry executives wrong on several points

Plastics industry executives wrong on several points

Written by Conrad MacKerron and Tim Smith. Originally posted in PlasticNews.

Walden Asset Management, in collaboration with As You Sow, recently wrote to the CEOs of nine companies arguing that membership in the Plastics Industry Association supports lobbying for statewide preemption laws that prohibit 70 million Americans in 10 states from the freedom to choose to enact bag ordinances to reduce plastics waste in their communities. Our goal was to end financial and brand support for plastic bag preemption lobbying that is usurping local community rights.

In a Nov. 5 article in Plastics News discussing this initiative (“Green investor pushes back on bag ban policy,” Page 1), the association and its subsidiary, the American Progressive Bag Alliance, made several incorrect and questionable assertions.

The groups assert that bans and taxes have never been shown to reduce litter. Fees on plastic bags have been shown to reduce litter in many credible, impartial studies. According to a recent study measuring trends over 25 years from the United Kingdom government’s Center for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, there are significantly fewer plastic bags on the seafloor after several European countries introduced bag fees. The study was based on 39 independent scientific surveys of the distribution of marine litter on seabeds between 1992 and 2017. A Scientific American posting notes that a plastic bag tax levied in Ireland in 2002 led to a 95 percent reduction in plastic bag litter, and a study by San Jose, Calif., found that a 2011 ban led to a plastic litter reduction of 89 percent in storm drains, 60 percent in creeks and rivers, and 59 percent in city streets and neighborhoods.

Analysis of plastic shopping bag collection in California during the annual Coastal Cleanup before and after its bag fee was enacted shows a significant 30 percent decline in plastic bag litter on beaches. The Austin Resource Recovery study found that the Single-Use Bag Ordinance was successful in reducing plastic bag litter in the city.

Plastics Industry Association CEO Bill Carteaux asserts that plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly and sustainable option. The industry says production of bags uses fewer greenhouse gases than other materials. Life cycle assessments cited by the plastics and chemical industry do not factor in the most harmful and long-lasting impact of plastic bags: pollution to land, rivers and oceans. Millions of birds and fish are impaired or choked to death by plastics bags and plastic particles from degraded bags. Cattle, moose and reindeer also suffer from eating plastic bags polluted to land.

The association says that recycling is the best solution to plastic bag waste management, but efforts to recycle plastic bags cannot be viewed as successful. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that just 5 percent of plastic bags are recycled. There are many reasons for this, but most fundamental is the unwillingness of the plastics industry or end-user brands to take responsibility for the costs of developing state-of-the-art collection, processing, and recycling programs and materials markets. Instead, the association blames consumers for littering the bags and expects consumers to pay most of the costs for having them collected and landfilled or recycled.

Lastly, Carteaux asserts that the Plastics Industry Association and APBA are separately funded organizations. The groups are a single financial entity as defined by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service regulations. Plastics News on Jan. 12 stated “APBA, while a nonprofit, is not required to release a tax return because it operates as part of the Plastics Industry Association in Washington.” Member dues to the Plastics Industry Association support the budget of APBA for the costs of their shared office space, shared webpage hosting and other shared overhead costs. In order for the association and APBA to be financially separate entities, separate organizations must be established with separate IRS financial filings.

Support of plastic bag preemption lobbying is a demonstrated conflict with company commitments to reduce plastic pollution and is a brand risk. Companies have the choice to demonstrate leadership on plastic pollution now.

Tim Smith is director of ESG shareowner engagement at Walden Asset Management. Conrad MacKerron is senior vice president at As You Sow.


Please follow and like us:
4,000 tons of single-use plastic produced annually

4,000 tons of single-use plastic produced annually

Written by Mehedi Al Amin. Originally posted in Dhaka Tribune.

In Old Dhaka alone, around 250 tons of non-recyclable products such as straws and plastic cutlery are being sold every month.

An estimated 312 tons of single-use plastic is produced per month in Bangladesh, posing a serious threat to the nation’s health and the environment, experts warned on Wednesday.

The “Stop using single use plastic to protect human health and Environment” report released by the Environment and Social Development Organization (Esdo) found that per year, 3,744 tons of single-use plastics are produced nationwide.

In Old Dhaka alone, around 250 tons of non-recyclable products such as straws and plastic cutlery are being sold every month.

Among the produced plastics, approximately 80-85% are discarded after one use and end up in drains, canals and rivers, creating massive pollution in the rivers which eventually ends up in the Bay of Bengal.

The report revealed that only five manufacturers make around 97.5 million pieces of products per month, which weigh a combined 195 tons.

“In Bangladesh, manufacturers are using single use plastics for packaging various food products, household and personal care products,” Esdo Chairperson Syed Marghub Murshed said at a press conference in Dhaka on Wednesday.

Single-use plastics include drinking straws, plastic cotton buds, sachets, food packaging and plastic bags. In the slow process of their decomposition, the plastics release toxic chemicals which are now being detected in human bloodstreams and  may cause cancer, infertility, birth defects and many other ailments.

“This plastic contains many different chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties including solvents, UV stabilizers, phthalates, antimicrobials, and industrial additives,” the Esdo chairperson said.

Professor Md Abul Hashem, chairman of chemical division of Bangladesh Standards Testing Institute, said awareness should be raised against the use of single use plastics.

“They are a big environmental problem and are causing massive issues that affect human and animal health,” he said.

Secretary General of Esdo, Dr Shahriar Hossain, said foamed plastic contains styrene and benzene which are toxic and carcinogenic.

“They have severe effects on our respiratory, nervous and reproductive systems,” he said.

“We use single-use plastic only for our comfort. We need to ban this plastic. There are more environment-friendly alternatives, for example bamboo or glass.”

Please follow and like us: