What
Laws Work Best to Cut Plastic Pollution?
Every minute an estimated 2 million single-use plastic bags are
handed out at checkout counters across the world.
They contribute to the 300 million tons of plastic waste generated each year, much of which ends up in the environment where it threatens wildlife, endangers public health and costs billions to clean up.
They contribute to the 300 million tons of plastic waste generated each year, much of which ends up in the environment where it threatens wildlife, endangers public health and costs billions to clean up.
How do you solve a problem this big?
According to legal analysts who advised Congress at a briefing
in January, the United States could reduce its contribution to the global
plastic pollution crisis by implementing sweeping federal policies that
restrict plastic use and hold manufacturers accountable for responsibly
handling waste.
They also called for establishing “extended producer responsibility” schemes, which hold plastic manufacturers responsible for the waste they create.
Their recommendations, along with a new report, drew on
research into existing legislation targeting plastic pollution in the United
States and across the world. The experts found that the key to reducing plastic
pollution is curbing consumption.
The report and its presentation resulted from a semester-long project by UCLA students Charoula Melliou and Divya Rao, in collaboration UCLA attorney Julia E. Stein, Surfrider’s legal expert Angela Howe and plastic bag legal expert Jennie Romer.
The report and its presentation resulted from a semester-long project by UCLA students Charoula Melliou and Divya Rao, in collaboration UCLA attorney Julia E. Stein, Surfrider’s legal expert Angela Howe and plastic bag legal expert Jennie Romer.
“We have to stem the tide of plastic entering our waterways and
landfills by reducing our consumption in the first instance,” says Stein.
What Works
There are currently no federal laws restricting single-use
plastics, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good examples that could serve as
useful templates.
According to Stein, Congress could shape federal policy by
following existing local and state laws that have already been crafted to
tackle plastic problems with bans on all types of single-use plastic items,
from bags to expanded polystyrene foam food containers to straws.
California made headlines in February after lawmakers proposed a phaseout of all plastic products that aren’t completely recyclable.
California made headlines in February after lawmakers proposed a phaseout of all plastic products that aren’t completely recyclable.
Such laws are grounded in scientific evidence that plastics are
problematic because they don’t break down in the natural environment and pose a
danger to wildlife and probably people.
There’s a precedent for using state and local laws to help craft national legislation: microbeads. After several states and municipalities banned the sale and manufacture of health and beauty products containing these ecologically damaging exfoliating plastic beads, the United States passed a federal act doing the same.
Most experts agree banning single-use plastic products is a more
useful strategy for reducing plastic use and pollution than recycling, which is
much less effective.
A ban also tackles the issue at the source, helping to curb greenhouse gases coming from the rapidly expanding petrochemical industry that uses fossil fuels to produce plastic.
A ban also tackles the issue at the source, helping to curb greenhouse gases coming from the rapidly expanding petrochemical industry that uses fossil fuels to produce plastic.
Commonly Used Plastics
With plastic so ubiquitous, where to start? Experts say that
banning just the most commonly used and littered items could cut pollution
significantly.
That puts single-use plastic bags front and center.
Plastic bags are among the top five most commonly found items on
shorelines, according to global beach cleanup data. So it comes as little
surprise that the most legally targeted plastic item worldwide has become the
plastic bag.
On the whole, research suggests focused legislation is highly effective at reducing plastic bag use and the presence of bags in the natural environment.
On the whole, research suggests focused legislation is highly effective at reducing plastic bag use and the presence of bags in the natural environment.
“Single-use plastic bags are particularly problematic as a
source of marine debris because of both the quantity generated as well the
mobility of bags,” says Anastasia Telesetsky, a professor of law at the
University of Idaho who has argued for the need for
a global treaty banning most single-use plastics.
“Some products are definitely more problematic than others though regrettably most single-use plastic packaging products can be found as part of ‘mismanaged waste’ somewhere in the world.”
“Some products are definitely more problematic than others though regrettably most single-use plastic packaging products can be found as part of ‘mismanaged waste’ somewhere in the world.”
Suffolk County on Long Island, New York, adopted a five-cent plastic bag fee at the beginning of 2018. According to county legislator William “Doc” Spencer, in just a few weeks, several grocery stores reported drops in plastic-bag use of as much as 80 percent.
And Suffolk County isn’t an isolated case. Many success stories
about plastic bag legislation are documented in the briefing report.
Washington, D.C. saw an 85-percent reduction in plastic bag use after a five-cent tax was implemented in 2009. In San Francisco plastic bag pollution dropped 70 percent following a complete ban on plastic bags with a 10-cent fee on compostable and paper bags that went into place in 2007.
Washington, D.C. saw an 85-percent reduction in plastic bag use after a five-cent tax was implemented in 2009. In San Francisco plastic bag pollution dropped 70 percent following a complete ban on plastic bags with a 10-cent fee on compostable and paper bags that went into place in 2007.
While plastic bag legislation may help reduce use and pollution
on a local level, the expert group’s briefing report highlights a lack of
consistency in U.S. plastic bag legislation.
And some states have implemented or attempted to implement rules that prohibit legislation regulating plastic bags and other problematic plastic consumer products, which is why proponents of plastic bans are pushing federal action.
And some states have implemented or attempted to implement rules that prohibit legislation regulating plastic bags and other problematic plastic consumer products, which is why proponents of plastic bans are pushing federal action.
According to the experts, the ideal federal legislation on
plastic bags would mirror what’s been found to be the most effective on both
local and national levels elsewhere: A ban on all thin plastic bags, and a fee
on all other kinds of bags such as those made from paper, thick plastic and
compostable materials. And it would be sweeping, so no part of the country
could obstruct such a ban.
To further curb use and pollution of throwaway plastics, states
and municipalities have also begun to ban plastic straws, plastic foodware like
cups and utensils, expanded polystyrene foam food containers, and cigarette
smoking on beaches.
Several companies have stopped using plastic straws and other single-use plastic items to create less waste.
Several companies have stopped using plastic straws and other single-use plastic items to create less waste.
The briefing’s authors suggest that Congress should, at minimum,
create a rule ending automatic distribution of plastic straws at all
restaurants and bars and ban expanded polystyrene foam products outright.
“In the United States, where local efforts to enforce source
control laws are under threat of preemption in several states, having
comprehensive federal legislation that requires source control is a way to
protect and augment the work of local governments that are trying to combat
plastic pollution,” Stein says.
Broader Focus
Besides banning common problematic single-use plastic products,
the expert group also recommends Congress pass legislation that would hold
corporations accountable for handling plastic waste at the end of its life.
Extended producer responsibility regulations require
manufacturers of plastic products to take their items back for reuse, recycling
or disposal to increase recycling rates and prevent plastic waste from entering
landfills and the natural environment.
Container-deposit legislation is one example of such a program that’s widespread — though not ubiquitous — around the United States.
Container-deposit legislation is one example of such a program that’s widespread — though not ubiquitous — around the United States.
Telesetsky says these schemes may be useful when designed to
manage long-lasting plastic products, but they’re trickier to implement and
incentivize when plastic packaging is involved.
“The problem with applying extended producer responsibility principles to existing single-use plastic is that there is simply no market for all of the reprocessed cheap packaging plastics that are being generated,” says Telesetsky.
“Cheap plastics have a finite usable life before they are inevitably landfilled or burned.”
“The problem with applying extended producer responsibility principles to existing single-use plastic is that there is simply no market for all of the reprocessed cheap packaging plastics that are being generated,” says Telesetsky.
“Cheap plastics have a finite usable life before they are inevitably landfilled or burned.”
Telesetsky praises the new briefing because it raises awareness
of a critical problem. But unlike the briefing group, she proposes banning
single-use plastic products outright, on a global scale, in addition to
incentivizing innovation in creating new biodegradable products and packaging,
which she argues would stop plastic pollution more closely to its source.
And it would address the issue on what she sees as a more radical and international — and thus more impactful — scale.
And it would address the issue on what she sees as a more radical and international — and thus more impactful — scale.
Yet Stein emphasizes that while her briefing has a national
focus specifically tailored to U.S. Congress, the wider view is international.
“We support international efforts to address plastic pollution,
but the United States also needs to take responsibility at home for its own
contribution to the problem.”
Will Congress take up that challenge?
Stein says she and other members from the UCLA-Surfrider group
who traveled to Washington, D.C. in January held several legislative briefings
for Congressional members and staff, including those involved with last year’s
2018 Save Our Seas Act.
The act provides some funding for federal marine cleanup and
waste-prevention efforts through NOAA’s Marine Debris Program. Already, two of
the bill’s cosponsors, Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI), have begun working on a revamped “2.0 version.”
“Overall, we felt the reception was positive — plastic pollution
is a topic that is on the minds of the American public and the congresspersons
who represent them,” Stein says. “We’re hopeful that Save Our Seas 2.0
legislation in the Senate may provide a chance to think about comprehensive
federal strategies to reduce plastic pollution.”
Erica Cirino is a freelance science
writer and artist based in Copenhagen. She travels the world to cover stories
about wildlife and the environment, specializing in conservation, biology and
policy. Lately she has been very focused on the issue of plastic pollution. Her
work appears in Scientific American, VICE, Audubon and other popular science
publications. http://twitter.com/erica_cirino
and http://www.ericacirino.com/
