Every week or so, it seems as though there are new studies and striking headlines drawing our attention to yet another terrible consequence of plastic production, consumption, and waste. Researchers are finding tiny microplastics in the deep ocean sediments, diverse marine species, presumably clean drinking water, and human organ tissues. These advancements are helpful for scientists to better understand the scope and scale of the plastic pollution crisis, but their progress remains very disconnected from the day-to-day interactions we have with plastics products and packaging.

Scientists have been sounding the alarm about our reliance on plastics for decades, and the conclusions of their studies aren’t much different now than they were as far back as the 70s. See, for example: Edward J. Carpenter’s 1972 research articles on “plastic particles” found in the Sargasso Sea and plastic nurdles found along the southern coast of New England.

Although plastic pollution wasn’t making news headlines decades ago, the research did continue, and leading scholars published several important early findings. Early research suggests that scientists were particularly concerned about the persistent and resilient chemical structure of plastics. Because they do not readily break down, plastics pose a unique threat to coastal communities, humans, and marine life that persists and accumulates over generations. Material consequences of marine debris were unclear, but scientists did recognize that plastics could absorb and leach out toxic chemicals – amplifying possible damages far beyond the already complicated mix of different plastic polymers.

Meanwhile, top manufacturers within the petrochemical industry heavily marketed the utility of single-use items without assuming responsibility for the proven and possible harms that their production, use, and disposal would cause. See, for example, Rebecca Altman’s story on “how plastic bags came to rule our lives.”

Low-income and racial and ethnic minority communities in the Global North and historically oppressed populations throughout the Global South were among the first forced to deal with the real consequences of the single-use plastics boom. Plastics are noxious at every stage of their life cycle: from the air, water, and land pollution created throughout production to the economic, public health, and safety consequences of mismanaged plastic waste.

As plastics became more convenient and single-use consumerism was assimilated into mainstream culture, demand for new plastics wasn’t the only factor on the rise. Plastic waste has consistently been accumulating at a rate that exceeds the capacity of global waste management infrastructure. Industrialized countries producing the greatest share of plastic and single-use waste funnel their garbage into developing countries that lack the necessary capacity to process and manage all the waste that comes from more developed countries.

It’s clear that the consistent flurry of daunting plastic-related headlines about scientific studies isn’t compelling a strong enough response from the system churning out single-use products. As the problem increases in scope and severity, there is no better time for us to tap into the local knowledge of communities that are actively adapting to the harms caused by plastic production, consumption, and wastage.

High level government and corporate actors have historically overlooked and devalued the rich intergenerational, collaborative, and experiential knowledge that community members hold. Those living on the frontlines of petrochemical plants have unique insights on the consequences of industrial activity that are most harmful to their community. Families up-cycling and repurposing all they already own and value out of necessity have unique insights on how we can foster a culture of regeneration and transition away from a throw-away economy. Those living overseas with limited resources to pursue the same educational and workforce opportunities as those of us in industrialized countries have unique insights on pathways to innovation that do not require invasive or extractive forms of technology.

I believe that we have all the tools we need to transition away from single-use plastics. When we tap into the unique value of the knowledge and skills that different groups possess, we have all we need to construct a system that meets our needs while valuing the health of our populations, land, and waters. See Intersectional Environmentalist’s Waste page for resources on waste, regenerative economics and circularity.

One of the most powerful ways we can contribute to solving the global plastic pollution problem is by amplifying the voices of those whose knowledge has historically been excluded from critical conversations about development and social well-being. We can construct economic and sociopolitical institutions that uplift present and future generations by taking this charge in our work, in our schooling, in our civic engagement, and even in conversations across the dinner table!

Plastic is problematic from cradle to grave: all stages of the life cycle of plastics release pollution and create physical hazards that plague frontline communities with chronic illnesses, negatively impact local economies, and contribute to the decline of our natural environment. Our dependence on plastics for day-to-day tasks has become a characteristic of the modern industrial era, and it may be difficult to imagine a world without so much waste.

That’s why Debris Free Oceans has recently endorsed the #PlasticFreePresident campaign to amplify demands that can help our country to begin the large-scale transition to a circular economy. A circular economy is an economic system that eliminates waste by keeping products and materials in use through innovative design and technology. 

We can transform our extractive, throwaway economy to a regenerative, inclusive one that’s good for our environment and creates quality job opportunities. We need to stop plastic pollution at its source while improving our waste-management systems, developing new business models, phasing out the worst plastic offenders, and shifting to reusable non-plastic alternatives. The federal government needs to be a catalyst for innovation!

Our sustained civic action and participation in the 2020 general election have led to a moment where this type of change is within reach. We’ve elected a President and Vice President who prioritize environmental justice, environmental stewardship, and economic growth through a sustainable economic system. Once in office, President-elect Joe Biden can take action on the following eight demands without Congressional approval. While some have the potential to catalyze immediate changes, others are longer-term measures that will require consensus at all levels of government and consistency from the general public to be most effective.

The #PlasticFreePresident campaign is advancing the following 8 actions for advocates to promote for President-Elect Biden and his administration:

1. Use the purchasing power of the federal government to eliminate single-use plastic items and replace them with reusable products.

There is a long history of consumer activism in the United States (suggested read: Buying Power by Lawrence B. Glickman). The concept of buying or purchasing power refers to the potential for collective shifts in spending patterns to determine the trajectory of the markets. When it comes to plastics, this would look like diverting our hard-earned dollars from low-quality plastic items and favoring longer-lasting, plastic-free reusables. When sufficient consumers make this change, our preferences are amplified and clearer to producers. Companies selling more sustainable products should succeed, and overtime increased demand for their products enables them to scale their operations and reach more consumers. Meanwhile low-quality plastic producers are forced to assimilate more sustainable alternatives or risk suffering losses. This is an indirect way that market forces can change production and consumption norms over the long-term.

The federal government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the United States, spending more than $450 billion on products and services each year. That means the government is likely the country’s largest consumer of disposable plastic products.

By reforming their purchasing practices, the federal government could greatly reduce the footprint of plastic waste and bolster demand for plastic-free and reusable goods.

2. Suspend and deny permits for new or expanded plastic production facilities, associated infrastructure projects, and exports.

When we think about the negative effects of plastic production, it’s easy to focus on the end of the plastic life cycle: its contribution to our global waste footprint and potential to end up as marine pollution. However, it is just as important to recognize that every piece of plastic is derived from fossil fuels and emits excess greenhouse gases throughout each phase of its life cycle (suggested read: Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet).

In the next 10 years, the petrochemical industry is projected to increase plastics production by at least 35 percent. This includes over 300 new projects slated for territories within the United States. New and expanded facilities produce raw material for single-use plastics using fossil fuels. Because plastics are made from crude oil or fracked natural gas, these bans would curb the impacts of plastic pollution and the climate crisis simultaneously.

3. Make corporate polluters pay and reject false solutions.

Plastic producers must be held accountable for the social, financial, and ecological damage they are causing. The President can hold corporations accountable by supporting legislation such as the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act; calling for investigations on plastic producers, transporters, and manufacturers; and imposing more stringent regulation to minimize disinformation about recycling and product sustainability.

Additionally, the Biden administration can minimize greenwashed, false solutions to the plastic pollution crisis by rejecting funding for projects that ultimately worsen the scope and scale of environmental injustices. Some of these false solutions heavily marketed by the petrochemical industry include: chemical recycling, waste-to-fuel, waste-to-energy, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc.

4. Advance environmental justice in petrochemical corridors.

Plastic production and refining facilities are often sited near fossil fuel infrastructure. In the United States, these clusters marginalize low-income and racial and ethnic minority communities in the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, and the Ohio River Valley (to name a few).

Fenceline communities are most directly impacted by the air, land, and water pollution released throughout the production of plastics. The #PlasticFreePresident campaign demands that executive agencies conduct their responsibilities transparently and facilitate spaces for historically excluded individuals living in fenceline communities to contribute meaningfully in petrochemical permitting decisions.

In order to advance a transition away from the petrochemical and fossil fuel industries, executive actions will be critical. The President can direct federal agencies to collect more data on environmental quality and the health of affected communities, develop mechanisms to increase investment in their local economies, and call for investigations on violations of their rights to sovereignty, dignity, and quality of life.

5. Update existing federal regulations to curtail pollution from plastics facilities by using the best available science and technology.

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and the environment. This federal agency is required to ensure that our nation’s air, water, land, wildlife and human life are not harmed by industry activities. However, the EPA is not as effective in curbing the effects of advancing industrial processes when its standards are not updated. Public health and the natural environment are increasingly harmed by their reliance on standards that are growing decades old. The President has an important responsibility to direct the EPA to update its performance standards, regulatory guidelines, and research agenda.

6. Stop subsidizing plastic producers.

For most of our nation’s history, the federal government has subsidized the fossil fuel industry. In 2020, the United States provided more unconditional financial support to the fossil fuel sector than any other G20 country has provided to all energy sectors combined (suggested read: The Climate Transparency Report 2020). It’s time to stop the flow of federal funds to the petrochemical industry and the fossil fuel industry (which supplies the inputs for plastic production). These funds can be redirected to advance innovation in sustainable waste management and support the growth of reusable plastic-free alternatives.

7. Join international efforts to address the global plastic pollution crisis through new and strengthened multilateral agreements.

The United States’ extractive and wasteful economy does not exist in a bubble. Our actions have a direct effect on the global economy and an indirect effect on the decisions made by other countries. For many years, the United States has been counterproductive in others’ efforts to address the global plastic crisis. It is time for the U.S. to become an active champion of circular economics, encourage our allies to address the global plastic crisis, and begin targeting global patterns of production, consumption, and disposal. This can be achieved by forging legally-binding agreements with other major players in the production and waste management of plastics. Cooperative action can be a powerful agent in bringing justice to the low-to-middle income groups that have been marginalized by the life cycle of plastics beyond our borders.

8. Reduce and mitigate the impacts of discarded and lost fishing gear.

Some of the most dangerous hazards posed by marine debris come from lost or discarded fishing gear in the open ocean. This includes gill nets, traps, and heavy metal equipment that change the biochemical composition of the marine environment, entangle and kill marine organisms, impede navigation, introduce toxic chemicals into the food web, and impose massive cleanup costs for coastal communities. The President can work with other federal agencies to mandate more stringent reporting, monitoring, and retrieval projects to recover lost materials. There are many unique, innovative solutions that can be employed generate new products from the materials that are recovered. One example is Netplus, an alternative to virgin fibers that’s made of recovered fishing nets. They’ve worked with 50 fisheries in South America and collected over 2.6 million pounds of discarded material to date!

In 2021, we will urge President Biden to take these actions during his first year in office so that we may collectively build a safer, healthier, and more equitable society. We urge you to learn more about the power of having an actively plastic-free president and join us in this advocacy throughout the coming year!

On June 30th, the US House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis released Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America. The report outlines policy recommendations for the federal government to address the risks posed by climate change in a way that advances justice and equity, benefits workers and the national economy, and protects public health.

The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis was created by Speaker Pelosi at the outset of the 116th session of Congress to make science-based policy recommendations to the standing committees of jurisdiction on how to solve the climate crisis.

Here’s a glimpse at some of the themes addressed in the Committee’s recent report:

Investment and Economic Growth

A great deal of the plan addresses the need for investment in clean energy technology and infrastructure in order to propel our economy to thrive at net-zero emissions no later than 2050. Advancement of renewable energy generation coupled with more efficient transmission systems would support a transition to clean energy for households and businesses across the Nation. The report also calls for congressional action to support the launch of new economic sectors that would catalyze progress on different aspects of our climate goals. Expanding research on low-carbon building materials, for example, would address the often overlooked waste and carbon footprint of the construction industry.

Did you know that cement, a key ingredient in concrete, is responsible for approximately 8% of global carbon emissions? If cement were its own country, it would rank among the top 5 highest contributors of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

By investing in the manufacturing of clean energy, electric vehicles, circular supply chains, and zero-emission technologies; the federal government can promote economic activity in a way that aligns with the urgent demands of the climate crisis.

This plan also calls for investments to elevate the electrification and transportation sectors. Advances in energy storage technology will be particularly important for the clean energy transition to be scaled across residential districts and economic sectors.

With investment and economic growth comes the opportunity for job creation! The recommendations laid out in this plan set the stage for the creation of high-quality, good-paying jobs that build local workforce capabilities, acknowledge and uplift vibrant regional economies, and strengthen workers’ rights to organize.

New Standards for Innovation

In addition to funneling federal dollars into the economic sectors that will propel the Nation forward in this transition, Congress can encourage innovation that aligns with climate action goals by setting new regulatory standards.

One well-known recent example are the Obama-era fuel economy standards which were established to push for production of vehicles that travel further on the same amount of fuel. This is also known as fuel efficiency, and it’s an excellent transitional mechanism for reducing the need for gasoline and decreasing air pollution associated with fuel combustion and transportation in general.

The plan sets forth recommendations for new standards for clean energy generation, energy efficiency, vehicle emissions, fuel carbon, infrastructure resilience, industry performance, labor and economic opportunities, and the pollution and leakage coming from the declining fossil fuel industry.

Justice and Equity

In setting forth a national net-zero emission goal, one of the most important aspects of measuring progress and maintaining accountability will be assessment of how costs and benefits are being distributed. This requires specific attention on interventions and impacts in historically marginalized communities of color and low-wealth communities. Many of the 12 pillars in this plan integrate the principles of environmental justice, in such a way that the health and knowledge of historically marginalized communities may be centered in federal climate and environmental policy.

The urgency for environmental justice is addressed through clean-up initiatives for remediation in communities that have been disproportionately exposed to pollution (also known as “EJ communities”). The report calls for prioritization of EJ communities in new federal spending, meaningful engagement with these individuals, and support of academic and government research on how the impacts of federal policies are affecting their neighborhoods.

Community Resilience

Another critical theme of the recommendations is the need for adaptation in currently and foreseeably vulnerable communities. Climate scientists have been warning of the human health and public safety risks associated with the increasing global mean surface temperatures and unpredictability of extreme weather events for over four decades. As such, there is no doubt that mitigation and innovation must be coupled with emergency preparedness and adaptation as priorities.

One of the many initiatives outlined in this report is the establishment of a National Climate Adaptation Program. This is intended to support state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in making sure their homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Risk management needs will range vastly: to bolster the structural integrity of industrial and manufacturing facilities, the resilience of our homes and local infrastructure, and the stability of agricultural systems fronted with climate-related hazards.

Notably, there is an entire pillar dedicated to making the agricultural industry a tool for climate action. Agriculture is arguably one of the most profoundly threatened systems that we rely on in the context of climate change. Recommendations in the report include the integration of adaptation and mitigation practices for new and otherwise disadvantaged farmers, incentives for them to implement efficiency and renewable energy technology on their lands, and expanded resources for the protection of farmland.

There are many important steps that have been and must continue to be taken in order to advance a global agenda for just climate action. I encourage you to learn more about climate action proposals from the local to the transnational level, including the US House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis’s report Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America.

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.