California signs nation’s most stringent plastic polluter-pays law but opponents question environmental benefits
01 Jul 2022 --- The US State of California has signed a new “Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act” that will see the US’ most stringent plastic reduction, recycling and infrastructural development funding requirements imposed on industry players. However, opponents of the bill are concerned the law could lead to heightened environmental issues.
The 76-page bill stipulates that plastic producers impose a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging and foodware by weight and item count by 2032; nearly half of that reduction must result from the direct elimination of plastic packaging or switching to reuse and refill systems. The bill also requires that all single-use packaging and foodware, including non-plastic items, be recyclable or compostable in California by 2032.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill (SB54) into law two days ago after months of deliberation and negotiation with environmental activists. The nonprofit group Ocean Conservancy was the principal contributor to the legislation’s text.
“It’s hard to capture how momentous this feels,” said Dr. Anja Brandon, US plastics policy analyst at Ocean Conservancy and a principal contributor to the bill text. “The US is the number-one generator of plastic waste worldwide and a top contributor to the ocean plastics crisis. We can’t solve this problem without US leadership, and by passing this law, California is righting the ship. This is a huge win for our ocean.”
This week, global leaders warned the world is facing an “ocean emergency” at the UN’s Ocean Conference in Lisbon, Portugal.
The law is the strongest anti-plastics legislation in the US.
Slashing plastics
By 2032, the California plastics industry will also be required to reach a 65% recycling rate for all plastic products and provide hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to support communities and restore ecosystems most impacted by plastic pollution.
“A few years ago, legislation of this magnitude was unimaginable in the US,” says Jeff Watters, vice president of external affairs at Ocean Conservancy.
“This is what strong, forward-thinking political leadership looks like.”
Recently, the State of New York also introduced two new bills that were, at the time, described as the nation’s strongest legislation (if passed) to combat plastic pollution.
California’s SB54 bill was signed just hours after petitioners withdrew a parallel plastic pollution ballot measure. Ocean Conservancy had supported both efforts but supported the withdrawal of the ballot measure, given that SB54 had passed both chambers of the state legislature.
“Our number one priority has always been fewer plastics on shelves and less plastic pollution in our ocean and both SB54 and the ballot measure were viable pathways,” explains Nicholas Mallos, senior director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas program.
California must now impose a 25% reduction in single-use plastic packaging by 2032.
“However, we believe this is the surest outcome for impact. Historically, ballot initiatives face an uphill battle for implementation even when passed, meaning it could be years before any of its provisions would go into effect. Not only is SB54 as strong or stronger than the ballot in many ways, but we are looking at guaranteed action on this critical issue immediately.”
A major policy mistake?
However, not all parties are happy with the move. Dr. Chris DeArmitt, described as one of the world’s leading plastics experts, tells PackagingInsights the legislation is “100% certain to increase harm, materials use, litter and waste.”
“We know that on average, it takes 3-4 lb of other material to replace 1 lb of plastic,” he notes.
Ocean Conservancy scientists say their calculations show that the SB54 legislation alone would eliminate nearly 23 million tons of single-use plastic packaging and foodware over the next decade.
“So, they will replace 23 million metric tons of plastic with 80 million tons of paper and other materials. We also know from life cycle assessments that the replacement materials cause more harm, meaning more CO2, more water used, 3-4 times more litter and so on,” stresses Dr. DeArmitt.
“A ban on single-use products might be green, but banning only the greenest material is downright stupid and anti-scientific. Imagine you had four children named paper, plastic, wood and metal and decided only to punish the one who behaved the best. Would that be wise? Would it be just?”
Dr. DeArmitt has studied over 3000 peer-reviewed studies on plastics and recently provided an Expert View article for PackagingInsights on what he calls “plastics persecution,” giving evidence that anti-plastic sentiment in the media and policymaking is unscientific and bound to cause more damage to the environment.
By Louis Gore-Langton
