Systemic injustices and corruption have become especially salient throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Public consciousness and civic action are soaring amidst record levels of unemployment, sensationalized video exposing the horrific realities of police brutality, and intensification of the climate crisis.

Scientists have come to an overwhelming consensus that climate change is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activity, and high-level decision-makers across the globe are increasingly recognizing the climate crisis as a threat-multiplier. This term is intended to convey how the risks and hazards associated with climate change overlap with and exacerbate existing sociopolitical, economic, and human health issues.

Well stated by Rosemary DiCarlo, Head of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs for the United Nations (2018):

“The risks associated with climate-related disasters do not represent a scenario of some distant future. They are already a reality for millions of people around the globe – and they are not going away.”

Inherently oppressive policy mechanisms, such as redlining, have concentrated polluting infrastructure responsible for excessive emissions in Black, Latino, and Native American communities (1) (2) (3). While accelerating global warming and amplifying climate-related risks, pollution exposure increases racial and ethnic minority communities’ vulnerability to a number of developmental and chronic respiratory illnesses. Unsurprisingly, disproportionate exposure to pollution likewise contributes to the greater vulnerability of marginalized communities to contracting and dying from COVID-19.

A demonstrator addresses protesters in Harlem. [The Guardian/Flo Ngala]

Acknowledging the parallels between these intersecting crises, the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a remote hearing on June 9, 2020 entitled Pollution and Pandemics: COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Environmental Justice Communities.

Mustafa Santiago Ali, the Vice President of Environmental Justice, Climate, and Community Revitalization of the National Advocacy Center at the National Wildlife Federation was among the witnesses. In his testimony, Ali draws an unsettling parallel between deeply rooted systemic racism, the militarization of policing in the United States, and exposure to toxic air- and water-borne pollutants:

“Black communities are dealing with the systemic racism that has infected the policing in our communities that is literally choking us to death. The rolling back of environmental rules and regulations has us gasping for air due to the cumulative public health impacts from the burning of fossil fuels in our communities. Covid-19 continues to devastate black, brown and indigenous communities both in infections and deaths. When we say, “I Can’t Breathe” we literally can’t breathe.”

Jacqueline Patterson, Senior Director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, also highlighted the intersections between the current crises and expressed the need for an integrated approach for recovery in her testimony.

Frontline communities across the nation are actively seeking and testing their own interventions to recover and adapt in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, economic downturn, systemic inequality, and climate change. Community-led approaches acknowledge and build upon the distinct capacities and strengths of their neighborhoods, organizations, businesses, government institutions, and individuals’ identities to address social needs.

Rising sea levels threaten the Louisiana coastline where offshore drilling occurs. [Getty/Drew Angerer]

Amid historic protests against the injustices that have long oppressed Black Americans, President Trump signed an executive order to eliminate regulations used by and for the protection of frontline communities fronted with potentially harmful, federally-funded development projects.

Among the most significant environmental laws in the United States, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) creates a pathways for citizens to partake in a thorough review process for federal actions. For example, state or local officials must complete an environmental review before federal funds may be allocated for any project they’d like to propose. Any American citizen can comment on the proposal and call attention to environmental impacts not previously accounted for by the responsible federal agency. It is required that this feedback be taken into account and acted upon before the project can receive approval for federal funding. This process enhances transparency, holds decision-makers more accountable to the American public, and sheds light upon alternatives with potential co-benefits not previously identified.

The NEPA review process is among a slate of environmental statutes and regulations weakened by President Trump’s recent executive order. This is significant—even more so in the context of the compounding crises burdening historically marginalized communities. NEPA is widely considered landmark legislation, representing a historic achievement in the face of development projects that generated detrimental consequences by exacerbating environmental injustices. Rather than being perceived as obstacles to recovery, thoughtful regulations merit consideration as instruments for ensuring that long-term value is derived from federally-funded projects.

As we navigate violently compounding crises, we must hold public officials accountable for the bigger-picture outcomes of their actions and demand that they prioritize the democratic participation of frontline communities.

Microplastics, as indicated by their name, are tiny bits of plastic that measure less than five millimeters in diameter. That’s about the size of a small green pea! According to The Ocean Cleanup, approximately 1.2 million tons of microplastic waste are generated each year, and 1/5th of that global statistic comes from North America alone.

Primary microplastics are often manufactured for consumer products such as cosmetics, specialty soaps, clothing, and other textiles. Because plastics are prone to physically breakdown, microplastics may also form as larger debris breakdown. The road markings indicating lane separations, glossy coating all over the hull of a boat, and abandoned rubber tires are all possible sources of these secondary microplastics. 

Just last month, one study documented the highest concentrations of microplastics ever recorded within deep-sea ocean sediments: 1.9 million microplastic pieces per square meter!

The scientists were examining sediment samples from the depths of the Tyrrhenian Sea to investigate the role of deep ocean currents in microplastic transport and deposition, and all 16 of their sediment core samples were found to contain microplastic particles.

According to the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, littering and landfill discharge are the main pathways whereby plastics enter our rivers and oceans. The density of plastic marine debris accumulated determines if plastic waste remains on the surface, becomes beached in coastal areas and estuaries, or sinks to deep-sea sediments.

As we strive to reduce plastic consumption and adopt more responsible waste management practices, it is important to address the potential impacts of microplastic movement in our oceans. Ocean circulation patterns are formed by global trade winds and forces created by the Earth’s rotation. Wind and wave patterns are essential for the temperature regulation and maintenance of healthy nutrient flow for marine organisms.

Weather conditions and ocean circulation play a significant role in the geographic distribution of microplastics. Circular ocean currents can relocate plastic marine debris from remote sources to more stationary and centralized accumulation sites called “gyres.”

Disproportionately large amounts of marine debris have been found in these areas, including the North Atlantic and Great Pacific garbage patches.

Studies have also consistently indicated that microplastics are unintentionally consumed by marine organisms. Scholars highlight the ingestion of microplastics by species marked for human consumption and the infiltration of micro- and (even smaller) nanoplastics in filtered drinking water. This is a widespread problem because most standard water treatment facilities do not effectively remove all microplastics.

Additional risks are posed by the chemical composition of microplastics. While plastics are produced, hundreds of chemical additives are used to enhance their unique characteristics. These chemicals may leach out from waste products into our waterways, disrupting the chemical composition of natural sea water while posing risks to plants and animals reliant on marine ecosystems. Studies on the biological and biochemical impacts of plastic pollution have only scratched the surface of potential effects that these materials could have over the long-term. This knowledge gap is particularly problematic for coastal and/or environmental justice communities that are more likely to be exposed to polluted waterways, contaminated drinking water, or affected marine life.

Even though microplastics have been a problematic by-product of solid waste for decades, they represent a relatively new area of multidisciplinary study. Scientists have investigated the fate of plastic marine debris in the context of the life cycle of plastics, finding that plastic cannot be chemically broken down on its own overtime. Plastic waste, instead, only physically decomposes from macro- to micro- to nano-plastics over hundreds of years.

Polymer scientists have sought to identify new possibilities for recycling plastics, including macroplastics, collected from the depths of our oceans. This has been a challenge because there are a number of unique plastic polymers used to produce the highly durable products that we use and discard. Two large areas of focus have been optimizing methodology to increase the amount of times that plastic materials can be recycled and finding new ways to transition existing materials for very different applications than their original form. One example of an area for growth is demand for composite materials made from fiberglass and carbon fibers. Engineers use these materials for building automobile and wind turbine frames. It would be ideal to satisfy their needs using reprocessed plastics, but that would require complex logistics and technology that is not yet efficiently coordinated.

“Plastics recycling with a difference” [Science Magazine]

For now, it’s best for us to stay committed to recycling efforts, strive for circularity by reusing and re-purposing materials we already own, advocate for responsible waste management within our communities, and direct advocacy efforts to hold businesses accountable for their actions. We can also seek out products that do not contain primary plastics, such as natural soaps and scrubs without microbeads, and brands that prioritize circularity by including recycled materials in their supply chain. If you crave that scrubby sensation from skincare products, try making your own with coconut oil and sugar or salt as the base ingredients. There are loads of ingenious fragrance combinations out there using essential oils that may be extracted from herbs or fruits you already have at home. In the end, it’ll have the same satisfying and nourishing effect, without negative environmental impacts!

[Rescue a Reef, UM RSMAS]

[Rescue a Reef, UM RSMAS]

Smaller coral reef fragments have a higher growth rate. As coral grows in size, some of the energy used for its growth is stored for reproduction. So, the team continues fragmenting the coral into smaller pieces for more effective growth and replication in the nursery.

“By continuing to fragment the initially collected corals, increasing their growth rates, we’ve accumulated a large enough self-sustaining standing stock of healthy coral tissue to begin moving some to the reef!” —Maddie

When coral is removed from the nursery to be transplanted, it’s destination can be determined in one of two ways:

A: classical restoration— into degraded reefs that have declined from their historical levels of productivity

Or, B: progressive restoration— in reef habitats that may not have been advantageous in the past but are likely to be better suited under current and future conditions

Ultimately, establishing mature colonies is the ultimate goal. 

“Mature colonies are more effective in contributing to reef structure and repopulating the surrounding area.” —Dalton

Q: I have found that such hands-on intervention is often met with more skepticism. My parents always warned us kids never to touch the reefs because they’d die! Tell me a bit about the significance of restoring our reefs with keystone species. What would you say to an outsider that may be troubled by the thought of such “involved” work? What measures does your team take to ensure best practices?

According to Dalton, it’s critically important to acknowledge the need for conservation and restoration of coral reefs.

Locally, reefs protect our coastlines by absorbing wave energy. They also provide jobs through tourism, recreation, fisheries— ultimately contributing to food supply as well.

“The livelihoods of over one billion people are tied to coral reef ecosystems.” —Dalton

When scientists investigate the issues they’re facing, we can all better understand and work towards the solutions that restore them for the future.

“There are laws in place that [explicitly] protect coral species, so an everyday individual is not allowed to nor should they touch a coral.” —Dalton

The Rescue a Reef team takes extensive precautionary measures not to physically harm or communicate germs or bacteria when collecting fragments for coral gardening and out-planting. Unsupervised individuals are not advised to attempt any of the aforementioned procedures that may interfere with marine ecosystems.

Exclusively under the supervision of trained professionals, such as Rescue a Reef’s team of marine scientists, any citizen scientist can receive the necessary guidance to contribute to coral restoration and reef re-building during their hands-on programs.

Q: One big focus at DFO is education, and I know that Rescue a Reef also organizes a number of different events and offers services to increase scientific literacy and encourage individual responsibility. Tell me a bit about your approach to citizen science.

Rescue a Reef is an extension of the Benthic Ecology and Coral Reef Restoration Lab at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School. This program strives to (1) increase public understanding of coral reefs, (2) promote an understanding of the issues they’re facing, and (3) contribute to coral restoration through citizen science.

Beyond raising awareness, the team leads citizen science expeditions and creates an avenue for individuals to donate and directly support coral restoration research.

“Much like Debris Free Oceans, Rescue a Reef strives to involve individuals first-hand.” —Dalton

Because coral reef degradation is not something regularly accessible to the majority of us, these tangible recovery and restoration experiences are especially powerful.

Q: Tell me a bit about your favorite RAR x DFO collaboration.

“We collaborate with DFO because it’s going to take a village. We want to increase awareness on coral reef conservation, but also plastic consumption and single-use waste because overall the way to solve these issues is at the societal level – in reducing climate change.” —Dalton

Every year since our first collaboration, DFO and RAR have hosted events that enable everyday individuals to contribute to restoring local reef populations while cleaning up marine debris. By melding our missions and audiences, we’ve all learned and grown a great deal. These events foster an important sense of hope for the power of individual and community-driven impact. 

Unfortunately, it isn’t possible for the Rescue a Reef team to lead citizen science trips offshore everyday. One of Dalton’s most memorable community events was actually inspired by DFO’s mission and the research team’s experience with marine debris along the shoreline:

Rescue a Reef’s first cleanup hosted independently from DFO took place on International Coastal Cleanup Day. Despite the unfavorable weather, attendees came out in droves and collected hundreds of pounds from a small shoreline. This was a big moment for Dalton because “the individuals clearly followed Rescue a Reef devoutly, but had not been exposed to the local impacts of plastic pollution which have such an immediate impact upon coral reef ecosystems.”

Maddie noted that the latest Dive Day collaboration between DFO and RAR was attended by all women, so it was an empowering celebration of women in science! Everyone participated in out-planting corals at one location and then cleaning at the adjacent mooring buoy, which really brought the connection between the two missions full-circle!

Q: How can we all get involved in supporting Rescue a Reef?

“Everyone can be a coral champion from home!” —Maddie

Dalton suggests we look at our actions in the context of a “coral footprint” which closely parallels the concept of a carbon footprint. By reducing our plastic waste, opting for more plant-based meals, making use of public transportation … “essentially anything to reduce your carbon footprint at the individual level can go really far in protecting coral reef ecosystems!” — Dalton

These climate-conscious actions can reduce your “coral footprint” beyond your individual actions too! Bring this awareness into your workplace, among your peers and colleagues, within your municipality, and when advocating to public officials. Moving from individual change to systems-level advocacy can elevate our collective impact for the benefit of reef ecosystems.

You can also check out the Coral City Camera, streaming underwater serenity live for your enjoyment and appreciation— even when far from a coastline!

To learn more about Rescue a Reef outreach and coral restoration research, check out this video, @rescueareef on social media, and the RAR website: www.rescueareef.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an excellent example of how collective action can reduce our environmental impact and mitigate severe social problems. When everyone takes action based on the evidence-based recommendations of public health experts, we collectively slow the spread of the virus and protect our communities. Similarly, as more individuals (including our elected officials and corporate elites) heed the insights of climate and biological scientists regarding the impacts of climate change and plastic pollution, we reduce the risk of exacerbating harsh impacts for frontline, coastal communities.

In spite of all lessons that we could learn from this global devastation, multinational fossil fuel corporations have driven up oil production and created a rather undesirable situation for environmental interests. The supply of oil is at a peak, meanwhile demand has collapsed due to lowed economic activity during the pandemic. This has driven the price of oil below zero for the first time in history! Global oil consumption has been in free-fall as more countries introduce unprecedented measures to fight the coronavirus outbreak. The fossil fuel industry has failed to profit from this overproduction, and they shifted their efforts from fuel refinement to ethane cracking.

Simply stated, they’re diverting the methane gas and oil that we are not consuming as fuel to produce more plastic products. Ethane cracker plants are the facilities used to process the carbon-rich inputs used to create all kinds of plastic products. Their industrial activities cause immediate health and environmental detriment to nearby communities, known as frontline or fence-line communities, while exacerbating plastic pollution impacts around the globe. 

There’s more: Our team identified direct efforts by fossil fuel industry giants to ramp up demand for non-essential single-use plastics, especially plastic bags, by taking advantage of public fear and uncertainty during this time. What better time to take advantage of the public and run a manipulative campaign than a global pandemic? We are not surprised, as the fossil fuel industry has a long history of using misinformation to advance their profits at our expense. Still, this is upsetting and it’s actively misleading many concerned consumers.

The Plastics Industry Association is currently lobbying to quash plastic bag bans, even going so far as requesting that the United States Department of Health and Human Services publicly declare that banning single-use plastics during a pandemic is a health threat. Click here to read their letter.

The spread of misinformation has led many of us to question whether it’s okay to continue using reusable bags for our occasional, ultra-cautious grocery trips.

In a study cited by the Plastics Industry Association in their letter to the US DHHS, researchers at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University found that reusable bags can contain bacteria, and users don’t wash reusable bags very often. The study was funded by the American Chemistry Council, which represents major plastics and chemicals manufacturers. Most notably: the study recommends that shoppers simply wash their reusable bags, not replace them.

There is no evidence that single-use plastics are safer than reusable items, and it’s important for all of us to recognize that single-use plastics have a number of opportunities to become contaminated during their manufacture, distribution, inventory stocking, and use. They are exposed to open air and surfaces like any other item you may be concerned about cross-contamination from. Single-use plastics could only be proven more sanitary if packaged individually in sterile conditions and handed to the customer in intact sterile packaging—much like you would imagine a syringe is packaged before use to draw blood. Clearly, that isn’t practical or realistic.

Here’s a breakdown of our options based on currently available scientific evidence:

The New England Journal of Medicine, the world’s leading medical journal for over 200 years, published data in mid-March of this year that shows SARS-CoV-2 is more stable and has a longer lifetime on plastic and stainless steel than on copper or cardboard. Viable SARS-CoV-2 was detected up to 72 hours after application on plastic, while none was measured on cardboard after 24 hours.

There is no evidence presented here to back the claim that “single-use plastics are often the safest choice” as has been pushed upon the US DHHS. In fact, the findings suggest that cardboard is a safer single-use material than plastic with respect to COVID-19 viability.  

Another scientific study focused on the stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions showed that the virus is more stable on plastic than on printing or tissue paper, wood, cloth, glass, or banknotes. SARS-CoV-2 remained detectable on plastic for 4 days, while on paper it was not detected after 30 minutes, on wood or cloth after 1 day, and on banknotes after 2 day.

According to the Center for Disease Control, COVID-19 is most often spread directly from person-to-person. However, viral spread from contact with contaminated surfaces or objects is possible. Guidelines issued by the CDC do not make a distinction between the items this may include, so we can safely assume that their recommendations apply to single-use and reusable items equally.

Single-use items are not sterile and are bound to be exposed to microbes before reaching their end users. This means that handling a single-use plastic bag, utensil, container, or cup likely poses an equal risk of infection as any reusable item.

That said, Maine, Massachusetts, and a growing number of other states are still moving quickly to allow for delays and suspensions of plastic bag bans. In New Hampshire, the governor actually issued an emergency health order requiring stores to use single-use paper or plastic shopping bags. 

We, at Debris Free Oceans, acknowledge that the nature of COVID-19 poses unusual risks. The virus may be contracted and transmitted asymptomatically, and it is understandable that reusable items such as shopping bags may be an object of concern. We urge you to make that decision based on your individual circumstances, but acknowledge that banning reusable items is an unsupported attempt that will not be a long-term solution to cross contamination.

Judith Enck, a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, has called the plastics industry’s recent actions “shameless” and exploitative. We agree with her statement that it is understandable to use single-use materials occasionally, when necessary or beyond our control, but “in terms of overturning or delaying laws, [Enck sees] no independent data that supports that move.”

We are all struggling in some way to navigate this new normal. Pro-environmental habits, plastic waste reduction among others, may bring about a sense of normalcy and fulfillment amidst all the current uncertainty. 

First and foremost, we strongly suggest that you wash all materials that may pose risks for cross contamination: reusables (bottles, bags, wash cloths) as well as commonly touched surfaces (steering wheel, door handles, cell phone, credit cards and wallet). If you find yourself under circumstances where you must resort to single-use materials, we suggest that you prioritize non-plastic alternatives in the best interest of your well-being and environmental health.

We stand in solidarity with all those who have made sacrifices to stay home, stay distanced, and protect our communities. We are privileged with the time and resources to consider reusables when so many of our neighbors, family members, friends, coworkers, and local leaders are charged with the challenges directly posed by this dangerous pathogen. Adhering to the guidance of public health professionals is the least we can do to support the courage and generosity of the healthcare workers and first responders at the frontlines of this crisis. 

In this graphic, projections indicate that we’ll have produced 26 billion tons of plastic waste by 2050. Primary waste refers to plastic becoming waste for the first time. So, that value doesn’t include waste from plastic that has been recycled. [G. Grullón, Science]

You may have already seen pictures in the news and throughout social media much like this decomposing albatross with a stomach full of plastic waste.

These incidents are often caused by the plastics we use and discard on land. Plastic litter is a more common problem in wealthy, industrialized countries like the US and UK. Although we have the systems and resources to manage large streams of collected waste, our access to limitless single-use products and the other conveniences have brought us out of touch with the value of the materials we discard and the immediate effects of tossing them as litter. Although our waste management systems are not flawless, following common sense standards for disposal is tremendously better than leaving trash behind in an unintended spot.

[Dan Clark, US Fish and Wildlife Service]

No matter how they find their way into the environment, macro-plastics can be easily mistaken by marine life for food.

The jellyfish-like movement of a drifting plastic bag may come to mind, but this problem isn’t limited to physical appearances. A recent study conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that sea turtles responded most similarly to the smell of “biofouled” plastics as to that of their own food. This finding suggests that the unavoidable accumulation of microbes, algae, plants and small animals on the surface of plastic marine debris makes it more enticing for turtles to eat our trash.

Scientists estimate that nearly all seabirds and over half of our oceans’ sea turtles have ingested plastic. This blocks their digestive tracts and diminishes their appetite, resulting in malnutrition and population decline.

Fragments of plastic bags found in a juvenile green turtle’s stomach.[Victoria Gonzalez Carman, Business Insider]

Macro-plastics cannot chemically degrade, but they do physically breakdown into microplastic bits that are difficult to see or filter out of the water. Those tiny bits contaminate our drinking water and accumulate in seafood when consumed by fish. Even more often than macro-plastics, these tiny bits of microplastics are unintentionally consumed by marine and freshwater species.

Once ingested, microplastics break down into even teenier nano-plastics that can penetrate cell membranes⁠. This causes severe inflammation, breakage and decay of tissues in the gastrointestinal tract, absorption of harmful chemical additives, and often a stimulus response to toxicity. According to one study on the effects of nano-plastics, exposed fish exhibited severely altered feeding and shoaling behavior and metabolic function.

How does this affect human health?

Researchers from the University of California Davis and University of Hasanuddin found plastic debris in the majority of fish species sampled during their studies, all of which were marketed for human consumption. Notably, different streams of waste affected the two regions: textile fibers were found in 67% of species living off of the West coast of the US while larger microplastic debris were found in 55% of the species tested from Indonesia.

If the issue goes beyond marine species, into our drinking water and uptake by plant nutrients, how can we protect our health and address this issue over the long-term?

Survey your day-to-day activities and gradually phase out the non-essential single-use plastic products. Reducing your individual plastic consumption and opting for reusable or biodegradable alternatives will set an example for your family, friends, peers, and coworkers that’ll create a ripple effect of positive impact. When we all become stronger advocates for responsible consumption, we start to create shifts in social norms that can affect producers’ activities.

Odds are, you already have loads of plastic products at home. Don’t just throw them away! Refill, reuse, and repurpose the items you’ve already purchased or received as packaging. You will maximize utility to continue enjoying the durability of plastics while reducing your demand on new products/materials.

Advocate for responsible disposal and management of plastic waste in your home, at school, at work, at businesses you frequent, and to your local government. Spread the “trash talk” by sharing your knowledge to support a waste-conscious culture. In the United States, most of us enjoy the privilege of not seeing where the items that we throw “away” end up. That means we are all that much more responsible for learning about how we can be more proactive in reducing the waste we create and holding large polluting corporations accountable for their impacts.

Support or engage in research on the environmental and biochemical effects of plastic production, plastic consumption and use, or plastic waste. Simply sharing the results of intriguing new studies on social media can help to spread word on important findings!

On Tuesday, February 11^th, US Senator Tom Udall and US Representative Alan Lowenthal introduced unprecedented federal legislation to address the plastic pollution crisis.

“The plastic pollution crisis is past the tipping point: our communities, our waterways, and even our bodies are at risk. We are already bearing the cleanup costs of mountains of plastic waste, and it will only get worse for future generations. We have a responsibility to act now before the overwhelming public health, environmental, climate and economic effects of plastic pollution reach the point of no return. Our solutions are not only possible—they are practical and are already being implemented in cities and states across the country, including in my home state of New Mexico. But we need a comprehensive, national strategy to tackle this tidal wave of pollution before it is too late. We must drive the innovation necessary to break free from this unnecessary, toxic waste stream that is also accelerating the destruction of our planet via climate change. This bill calls on all of us, from companies to communities, to address this crisis head-on so that we can create a plastic pollution free world.” – US Senator Tom Udall

In short, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 offers a common-sense, comprehensive systems-based approach to address the plastic pollution crisis. It has tremendous potential to launch our nation’s resources in the right direction— increasing accountability, responsibility, and management efficacy.

Here’s an overview of its key provisions:

Mandating Producer Responsibility

Each time we dispose of packaging materials—whether plastic, paper, glass, or metal—the waste management burden trickles down to local and state governments. In effect, there is a strong disconnect between the design, production, and waste management phases associated with any given product.

The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act sets forth requirements for producer responsibility including the development, implementation, and administration of necessary collection and reprocessing programs. This includes co-ops between producers, cleanup efforts through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and investment in recycling and composting infrastructure.

Requiring Nationwide Container Refunds

Incentives are a powerful force for motivating changes in individual and corporate practices. With that in mind, this bill proposes a requirement for customers to be eligible for a 10 cent refund in return for used beverage containers. If unclaimed, the refunds would go back to beverage producers to supplement their investments in collection and recycling infrastructure.

Source Reduction

The bill also sets important benchmarks for changes in production and consumption: “Beginning in January 2022, some of the most common single-use plastic products that pollute our environment, cannot be recycled, and have readily available alternatives will be source reduced and phased out from sale and distribution.”

This will include prohibitions on plastic carryout bags, some food and drink containers, and expanded polystyrene products (also known as Styrofoam).

Additionally, the bill calls for federally-funded studies and literature analysis on plastic tobacco filters, electronic cigarette parts, and derelict fishing gear to guide federal agencies in enacting pollution mitigation policies.

Carryout Bag Fee

What’s more effective than incentives? Disincentives— that’s right! This boils down to a principle of behavioral economics called loss aversion: people dislike losses more than they enjoy benefits.

As a disincentive for consumers to use fewer plastic bags, the bill proposes a fee on carryout bags. The money generated by this fee would be used to fund access to reusable bags, local cleanup efforts, and improved recycling infrastructure. Alternatively, a business could retain the fee if they implement an incentive program that credits customers who opt for bringing their own reusable bags.

Minimum Recycled Content Requirement

With a new wave of investment and research being devoted to recycling infrastructure across the nation, this bill intends to support a growth in the supply of recycled plastic. The minimum recycled content requirement would mandate for beverage containers, such as plastic bottles, to be produced with a certain percentage of recycled content. This threshold would be set to increase overtime so that producers are constantly being encouraged to use less virgin plastic.

The EPA would also be required to implement recycled content minimums for other products, but this is dependent on assessment of technological feasibility by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Recycling and Composting

Conflicting and out-right misleading labels on packaging have made responsible waste management frustratingly inconsistent and demoralizing for most well-meaning consumers. To address this issue, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act calls for the EPA to develop standardized recycling and composting labels for both products and receptacles to encourage proper sorting and disposal.

Encouraging Domestic Responsibility

Every minute, it is estimated that the equivalent of 60 doubledecker busloads of plastic waste are burned or dumped in developing countries. Current rates of mismanagement due to exploitative trade policies pose serious health, safety, and environmental risks beyond our borders. Poorly managed waste serves as a breeding ground for vector-borne diseases, contributes to global climate change, and has even been found to increase rates of violence in urban areas. Conservative estimates attribute over one-million annual deaths to the adverse health effects of these practices.

The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act addresses the export of plastic waste, scraps, and pairings to non-OECD countries.

Protecting Existing Action

One of the reasons that this bill is a significant achievement for plastic waste reduction advocates is its unmatched scope. We have never seen a body of federal legislation proposed to directly address the plastic pollution crisis; any existing progress has been the result of market-based changes or efforts from lower levels of government. This Act has the potential to elevate accountability and sustainability in product design, manufacturing, distribution, and waste management in much more comprehensive way.

“We are running out of time to deal with this crisis of our own creation, and this legislation is a bold first step on the path to implementing lasting solutions.”  – US Senator Tom Udall

Although we have not seen any federal action on these issues, state and local governments have already enacted legislation to address the plastic pollution crisis within the bounds of their reach. Many of these local officials have been motivated by a more intimate understanding of the threats posed by single-use plastics on local economies in coastal communities, poor health outcomes for vulnerable populations exposed to their eco-toxic effects, and the substantial contribution of the plastic life cycle to heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. Importantly, this bill protects state and local governments’ previous actions. It also supports their enactment of more stringent standards, requirements, and product bans as deemed appropriate.

Pause New Plastic

Finally, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act provides time for federal agencies to “investigate the cumulative impacts of new and expanded plastic-producing facilities on the air, water, climate, and communities before issuing new permits to increase plastic production.”

To address the impacts of existing producers, this legislation would call for the EPA to update regulations for the elimination of plastic pollution from industrial facilities. It would also encourage updates to the Clean Air and Clean Water Act emission and discharge standards to ensure that plastic-producing facilities integrate the latest technology for pollution prevention.

With the rapid spread of sensational images and heart-wrenching video clips capturing the physical impacts of marine debris, many of us have been faced with the reality that plastic is the least favorable material for environmental health. Social media and digital campaigns help these stories to spread rapidly, but conflicting messages about different materials may also create unproductive online debates.

What makes this conveniently durable, widespread material more harmful than alternatives? The answer lies in the process: the life cycle of plastics.

Plastics are a category of synthetic polymers. They were designed by chemists seeking a strong, lightweight, and flexible material for consumer products. Polymers abound in nature! Cellulose, the material that makes up the cell walls of plants, is a very common natural polymer.

Synthetic, man-made polymers may be derived from natural substances like cellulose, but more often they are made using the plentiful carbon atoms in fossil fuels (such as methane gas or petroleum). These inputs allow for especially long branching to occur during polymerization chemical reactions.

Since humans learned how to create and manipulate synthetic plastics nearly 150 years ago, they’ve become a more prominent part of our lives. Most consumer products are made using some type of plastic polymer and many are surrounded by plastic packaging.

Extraction

The first step in creating a plastic product is the extraction of crude oil or methane gas. There are two main methods for these large-scale operations: mining and drilling.

Mining is used to extract solid fossil fuels by digging, scraping, or otherwise exposing buried resources. This often results in huge volumes of excess rock and soil being dumped into adjacent valleys and streams, affecting marine life and water flow. Extraction sites are also often left with poor soil and damaged land that is more prone to mudslides, landslides, flashfloods, and toxic water pollution in adjacent communities.

One Harvard University study assessed the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal from 1997 to 2005. The researchers found a link to lung, cardiovascular, and kidney diseases (such as diabetes and hypertension) and an elevated occurrence of low birth rate and pre-term births associated with surface mining practices. The total estimated cost came out to $74.6 billion every year, equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.

Unconventional extraction methods such as natural gas hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ have received a great deal of attention from advocates. Environmental effects of fracking include, but are not limited to, methane and toxic aerosol emissions, resource depletion, harmful wastewater contamination, and increased potential for oil spills and earthquakes. Importantly, all methods of fossil fuel extraction impose massive costs for fenceline communities that live, breathe, and work adjacent to these harmful industrial activities.

Refinement and Cracking

After fossil fuel extraction, the raw materials are shipped to a refinery. The goals of refinement are to derive the building blocks for plastic production: ethane from crude oil and propane from natural gas. At a cracking plant, ethane and propane are then chemically broken down into ethylene and propylene.

Processing and Manufacturing

Chemical modification of ethylene and polyethylene through catalyzed polymerization produces resins. Resins are the core ingredient used to produce the durable, flexible plastics we’ve all grown dependent upon. This chemical processing can be carried out in several different ways, leading to a variety of plastic products. That’s what those numbers on the bottom of many plastic products are used to indicate!

Resins are subject to high temperature and pressue, then cooled in order to make pre-production plastic pellets called ‘nurdles.’ These plastic nurdles are the input used by manufacturers to mold and form the plastic products we use.

For example, polyethylene plastics are used to make supermarket bags and water bottles. Meanwhile, polystyrene is best known in its brittle form marketed as Styrofoam, but the same chemical building blocks are used to create toy figurines and CD cases.

Differences in the end products of plastic production are partly due to use of chemical additives that may enhance or suppress chemical properties. When mismanaged or littered plastic waste accumulates in our oceans as marine debris, plastic additives pose notable eco-toxicological risks for marine species and humans.

Distribution and Consumption

Since 1950, approximately 9.2 billion tons of plastic have been produced— 40% of which comes from single-use products such as shopping bags, cutlery, and take-out-ware. Check out this National Geographic video to learn more!

Individuals have the power to change the prominence of plastic in the consumer products industry. By changing our purchasing priorities and seeking more plastic-free alternatives, we can urge companies to embrace more environmentally-favorable materials and create more durable, reusable products.

Waste Management

Given all the resources and energy used to produce each plastic product, it’s important that we responsibly use and dispose of any plastics we already own. We can re-use, re-purpose, and up-cycle the plastics we have to make the most of their use before discarding them. This can be as simple as storing batteries in an empty take-out container or using a frayed toothbrush to clean hard to reach crevices in your coffee maker or fish tank. Get creative!

In Miami-Dade and Broward County, hard plastic narrow-neck bottles may be recycled in municipal single-stream recycling bins. Plastic grocery bags, toothbrushes, clamshell containers, and food packaging are only recyclable through third-party entities such as Terracycle or your local grocery store. They are considered contamination in your curbside recycling bin.

When plastics are separated for recycling, they are transported to a materials recovery facility for sorting. Then, they are taken to a reclaiming plant where the material is flaked, washed, and formed into new resin nurdles for manufacturing.

Recycling may be the best way to dispose of plastics that can no longer be re-used, but it is important to understand that recycling is not a long-term solution for the plastic waste crisis. Recycling is logistically challenging, energy-intensive, and can be counterproductive by reinforcing plastic consumption. Plastics are also not infinitely recyclable. Each time the material is flaked and reprocessed into nurdles, it produces a lower quality plastic that will ultimately lose its ability to be recycled.

Problems presented by the entire life cycle of plastics must best addressed by a combination of (1) increased consumer education and motivated reduction in plastic purchases and (2) regulation of plastic producers and polluters to minimize the production of plastics and harmful effects of their industrial activities.

Just as other plastics, cellulose acetate in cigarette butts will photodegrade (physically break down into tiny microplastic bits) but never biodegrade (chemically break down). As a result, the toxic material persists in the environment indefinitely after being littered.

This plastic is uniquely dangerous because it often contains trace amounts of the carcinogenic chemicals from the original cigarette. When the plastic additives, absorbed nicotine, and trace heavy metals (such as lead and arsenic) leach from cigarette butts, they become part of the chemical composition of the surrounding seawater. Once ingested by marine organisms, these microplastics bits pose physical and biochemical risks that can kill marine organisms and/or bioaccumulate throughout the food chain. These adverse effects also impact humans through seafood and drinking water contamination.

“Cigarette butts are a pervasive, toxic and recalcitrant type of marine litter that requires urgent attention from manufacturers, users, authorities and the public to prevent the ingestion of cigarette butts by biota and water pollution from its leachate.” [Environmental Research]

In recent years, traditional cigarette-smoking has been largely replaced by e-cigarettes. “The leading manufacturer, Juul, for example, saw its sales increase nearly sevenfold between 2014 and 2017.” Today, more than 10 million Americans use e-cigarettes.

E-cigarettes are considered hazardous waste and e-waste, have a bulkier plastic exterior, and are becoming a part of mainstream culture. These circumstances only increase the need for responsible management and policy intervention.

Richard Barnes of the University of California stresses the role that regulation should play in ensuring responsible management and mitigation of smoking-related waste. The concepts of “Precautionary Principle”—which states that environmental harm does not have to be proven to justify preventative intervention—and “Extended Producer Responsibility”—which asserts that those who produce a toxic waste product should be held accountable for its cleanup” have been effectively invoked to address concerning waste from other consumer products. [Tobacco Control]

Environmental, aesthetic, economic, and health-related concerns have motivated cigarette smoking bans in a number of public parks and beaches. The first ban of this kind was instituted for Hanauma Bay, Hawaii in 1993. Prohibitions on smoking led by grassroots efforts in Solana Beach, California and Sarasota, Florida have recently engaged a significant number of beach-goers and achieved reductions in coastal pollution. For nearly five years, Sarasota successfully enforced a ban on smoking at its beautiful white sand beaches. However, the preemption was overturned after a “a court decision found only the state could make such laws.”

These cases offer a glimpse at the growing support for cigarette pollution mitigation in coastal communities. Local stakeholders affected by existing bans have emphasized the importance of education and inclusion for municipalities to achieve positive results from similar policies. The general public should be educated on the impacts of cigarette smoking, and smokers’ rights should be upheld in the enforcement of any regulations.

A program similar to the ‘bottle bills’ that have encouraged public participation in responsible waste management through deposit-return systems could be effective for recycling cigarette waste. In Boston, creative receptacles that pose a poll question can be answered by dropping a cigarette butt into one of multiple openings. This has been effective in making the disposal process more engaging and attractive for smokers.

A compulsory take-back policy may also be implemented to reduce cigarette butt waste. This would require for cigarette producers to collect and manage the waste generated from the sale of their products, invoking the principle of Extended Producer Responsibility. The logistics for this type of policy could become very complex and result in inefficient implementation. Policy alternatives are difficult to assess before they have been tried and tested, so it’s important for governing bodies to draw lessons from one another throughout policy adoption and program execution.

Cigarette waste is among the most harmful forms of plastic marine debris. The DFO Team challenges you to abstain from smoking, educate those around you about the impacts of cigarette waste, and advocate for more proactive and preventative mitigation of marine debris. The Butt Stops Here!

Today, mention of a Green New Deal is most often referring to Senator Edward Markey and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution. This bill calls for a 10-year mobilization for economic and environmental justice through climate policy. Although the concept of a Green New Deal and the threats posed by climate change have been known by scientists, politicians, and the general public for years, this is the most detailed policy proposal presented thus far.

The Green New Deal resolution was largely motivated by the insights published in the IPCC 2018 Special Report. It highlights the United States’ historic responsibility for a disproportionate amount of global greenhouse gas emissions and calls for intervention that remedies enduring legacies of injustice.

GET INFORMED

• Read the 14-page Green New Deal resolution! This is the best way avoid the bias of media misinformation and develop your own understanding of the vision and goals outlined.
• Watch this film, narrated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and illustrated by Molly Crabapple, that outlines the history that inspired the Green New Deal and what our Country could look like if the goals set out by this resolution were fulfilled.
• Listen to co-author Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez breakdown her motives for drafting the Green New Deal and vision of mobilizing the American economy to solve the contemporary issues of climate change and socioeconomic injustice on this episode of “All In with Chris Hayes” on MSNBC.

START THE CONVERSATION

• Bringing environmental issues and solutions to the forefront of our understanding of human health, social justice, and economic inequality is essential to fulfillment of the Green New Deal. Share this blog post or another resource that resonates with you with your family or friends, on social media, or simply bring it up in conversation!
• Even though most of the general public is aware of the threats of the climate crisis, we don’t frequently discuss environmental policy solutions. This is a huge missed opportunity! We need everyone’s unique insights to contribute to making global climate action effective and beneficial for all people and places.
• Watch this episode of One Small Step by NowThis News featuring Katharine Wilkinson, the senior writer of Project Drawdown. This book has been called “the most comprehensive plan to ever reverse global warming.” You can also check out some of the eye-opening solutions in the book or on their website!

ORGANIZE IN YOUR COMMUNITY

• The Sunrise Movement rose to prominence in November of 2018 after newly elected Representative Ocasio-Cortez attended a Sunrise sit-in at (now Speaker of the House of Representatives) Nancy Pelosi’s office. Activists were occupying the office to call for the formation of a Congressional climate committee. Since then, this organization has organized town halls, sit-ins, student strikes, protests, and confronted political leaders across the aisle about their stance on climate issues. Their direct action and digital organizing campaigns have helped make climate change a central issue in the 2020 Democratic primary.
• Joining the climate movement through a local Sunrise Movement Hub is an excellent way to advance political support for the Green New Deal. But, it’s not the only option! There are many other pathways to build support for just climate action through grassroots organizations or your existing relationships. Bringing in your peers, colleagues, family, and friends to have conversations about economic and environmental justice can inspire their support for a Green New Deal.
• Local coalitions in California, Illinois, and Pittsburgh are already seeing positive results from state-level Green New Deal policies! Learn more here.

CAST YOUR VOTE

• Before you hit the polls for the 2020 election cycle, check your registration status here.
• Find out what bills and candidates will show up on your ballot in advance. With some simple research using online tools like Ballotpedia or Vote411, you can prepare for a more streamlined voting experience.
• The Sunrise Movement has released this resource for the public to evaluate the Democratic presidential candidates, their platforms, and their take on a Green New Deal leading up to the 2020 Presidential Election.