By: Joshua Sabatini | 01/03/13 4:00 AM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

As a small Massachusetts town became the first U.S. community to ban the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles Tuesday, even eliminating such packaging from large events continues to elude San Francisco despite years of discussion.

While The City hasn’t been shy about taking on plastic bags or plastic foam food containers, water bottles have thus far managed to avoid its ever-growing ban list.

In 2007, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning city departments from buying bottled water. And since 2010, the Commission on the Environment has talked about banning plastic water bottles at events on public property. But it has yet to develop a citywide proposal.

“This is an item that we’ve talked about numerous times,” said Ruth Gravanis, member of the Commission on the Environment. “We are making strides, but we still have a long way to go.”

Last February, the Port of San Francisco banned single-use plastic water bottles for all events with more than 5,000 attendees, which impacted the America’s Cup yacht races. However, since the policy did not affect existing leases, it did not restrict sales at AT&T Park.

Meanwhile, other communities have taken action. On Tuesday, Concord, Mass., banned the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles. In 2007, Ann Arbor, Mich., prohibited city vendors from selling bottled water at city events.

In December 2008, Toronto’s City Council approved a ban that prohibited the distribution of water bottles in all civic centers, city facilities and parks. Last year, the National Park Service banned bottles from Grand Canyon National Park.

Julie Bryant, the city government zero waste coordinator for the Department of the Environment, called plastic water bottles “a very big environmental problem.”

“The commission would like to see the amount of bottled water consumed reduced and eventually eliminated — especially when San Francisco has such healthy, economical and tasty water available with the turn of a faucet,” said department spokesman Guillermo Rodriguez. He said the Department of the Environment is currently working with event producers and city departments to analyze different policies for events on public property. But no talks are under way about imposing a citywide ban on the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles.

The Ban the Bottle campaign claims that it takes 17 million barrels of oil per year to make all the plastic water bottles used in the United States.

Marine litter is a serious threat to the coastal and marine environment around the globe. Marine habitats are contaminated with man-made garbage and other waste, posing growing environmental, economic, health and aesthetic problems. The European Commission is raising awareness about this global problem, in line with commitments made in Rio this summer to reduce the incidence and impacts of such pollution on marine ecosystems.

Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: ”At the Rio +20 Earth Summit, World Leaders committed to achieving a significant reduction in marine litter by 2025. The European Commission intends to be at the forefront of this effort, working closely with Member States, Regional Sea Conventions and stakeholders to identify and develop concerted initiatives to tackle the problem.”

To raise awareness and stimulate reflection, the Commission is publishing an overview of the relevant EU legislation, policies, and strategies that touch on this problem, with an indication of on-going and future initiatives in this area. The overview can be consulted here:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm

Marine litter is a composed of up to 80 % of plastic, and originates from a diverse range of sources. Plastics tend to persist in the marine environment, possibly for hundreds of years. The document concludes that policies on water, resource efficiency and waste, marine and nature protection policies as well as ship and port infrastructure-related legislation all have a role to play in tackling the problem, but they need to be better implemented.

Past efforts have been hampered by a lack of solid information about the exact scale and nature of the problem. But this should now be partially resolved, as better knowledge becomes available. By 15 October 2012, as part of the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States had to submit an initial assessment of the state of their marine waters, their definition of ‘Good Environmental Status’ and the targets they have set to achieve it. The Commission is now analysing the reports of the Member States and intends to publish its assessment in 2013.

Not all Member States have been able to report on time. An up-to-date overview of the Member States’ reports can be consulted here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/scoreboard_en.htm

Next Steps

The Marine Litter paper, together with several on-going pilot projects and the information gathered from Member States on the state of their seas under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, will be an important input as the Commission considers a possible EU-wide reduction target as a contribution to the commitment made in Rio+20.

The Commission will now consult with Member States and other countries, Regional Sea Conventions, stakeholders and other interested parties on how to best take forward actions on marine litter. This consultation will culminate in an International Conference on Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in European Seas, co-organised by the German Federal Environment Ministry and the European Commission in Berlin in April 2013. Germany’s Environment Minister Altmaier and Commissioner Potočnik will be among the participants of this event that will focus Regional Action Plans for Europe’s Seas and aims to come forward with a practical toolbox for action.

Background

The environmental impacts of marine litter can be felt mostly on marine fauna, but are also are an extra stress on already fragile marine ecosystems, and can affect human health. Marine litter also hampers tourism, and the removal of litter on shore cost several million Euros a year to coastal areas in Europe.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires Member States to achieve “good environmental status” of their marine waters by 2020. In order to do so, a first step in the implementation is the preparation of an initial assessment (Article 8) which identifies the main threats to the European Seas. In addition, Member States have to translate their definition of ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES, Article 9) into concrete criteria against which the monitoring data can be assessed. Finally, Member States have to set national environmental targets (Article 10) which set out their ambition level. Marine litter is one of eleven qualitative descriptors Member States must consider when determining GES. All this work has to be done in cooperation between those countries which shared the four European Seas, the North-East Atlantic, the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

CHICAGO (Dec. 12, 10:50 a.m. ET) — Recycling and reducing common wasteful practices can save hospitals money – lots of it, according to a recently released study.

Susan Kaplan, research assistant professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s school of public health, was the lead author of the report, which says the industry as a whole could save $5.4 billion in five years and up to $15 billion in 10 years if it adopts sustainable practices.

The study considered several hospitals that recently went through various sustainable measures and extrapolated their findings out to the general hospital and health care system.

Among the areas for potential savings, according to the study: reduce medical waste through better segregation; reduce landfilled waste through recycling; more efficient purchase of operating room supplies; and the switch to reprocessed devices in the operating room over single-use devices.

Among the simple waste reduction efforts, the hospitals studied showed a range of 50 cents per patient per day in savings to more than $2.50 per patient per day. Changes in the operating room were as high as $57 per operation.

“We had seen some anecdotal evidence that was very suggestive and showed potentially some very significant [cost savings in a more sustainable model],” Kaplan said.

Many of the changes, promoted by Practice Greenhealth, Health Care Without Harm and the Healthier Hospital Initiative are very inexpensive to implement, Kaplan said.

“Many of them have virtually no upfront costs,” she said. “To us, that was one of the most interesting findings.”

Often hospital employees throw regular waste together with the regulated medical waste, often referred to as red bag waste. The cost of disposal of medical waste is much higher than regular waste, so adding unnecessary waste can skyrocket costs.

Simply educating employees on what is proper medical waste and what can be disposed in the solid waste stream could lead to big savings, Kaplan said.

“My impression is that perhaps there’s a lack of awareness,” Kaplan said as to why that practice seems common. “It seemed like the major intervention here was staff intervention and education about segregating in the right waste streams.”

Operating rooms are often a place where small sustainable practices can lead to big savings too, according to the study. Many operating rooms are fraught with one-time-use devices that are tossed after the surgery, but there are multi-use products available.

Cardiac catheters, orthopedic surgical blades and ultrasound catheters are among the items that can be easily reprocessed.

“They are minimum costs to the hospital with cost savings beginning immediately,” Kaplan said.

Blair Sadler, senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, one of the authors of the study and former CEO of Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, Calif., said the idea of saving money though environmental sustainability efforts is no longer theoretical.

“I was struck by the significant evidence and experience that is now out there,” he said. “You can really make a difference in sustainability that improves health care quality and improves the financial bottom line. It’s no longer a debate, it’s a matter of understanding it, accepting it and deciding which of the variety of strategies or tactics that you want to employ.”

Kaplan said for a sustainability program to be successful, there has to be a buy-in from management all the way down to employees.

“Any hospital can start implementing the program. The information on how to get started is out there,” she said. “But the culture of commitment can really make a difference.”

By Mike Verespej | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF

WASHINGTON (Nov. 19, 5:10 p.m. ET) — Women who have worked for companies that make plastic injection molded parts for the automotive industry have a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who have not been exposed to that type of working environment, say a team of 12 researchers, whose work was funded by a number of Canadian groups, including Health Canada.

The report, published Nov. 19 in the Journal of Environmental Health, examined the occupational backgrounds of 1,006 women with breast cancer in the Ontario counties of Essex and Kent and compared them to a control group of 1,146 women in the region who did not have breast cancer.

The report said that the breast cancer study group of 1,006 women included 26 women who worked in the plastics automotive sector. Based upon that group of 26 women, the report said women in the plastics automotive sector were almost five times more likely than women in the control group to develop breast cancer prior to menopause.

“One year in plastics (auto) employment is estimated to increase the odds of breast cancer by 9 percent,” said the report, with the cases of “excess breast cancer” largely “limited to small automotive parts suppliers, which would include some plastics operations.”

The report does not contain information directly linking the exposure of those 26 women to any particular chemical or identify any specific chemicals to which those women had been exposed on their jobs. It simply notes that the women in those environments are exposed to a wide number of chemicals that have been suspected of causing cancer.

The American Chemistry Council, based in Washington, took exception to that analysis.

“It is concerning [to us] that the authors could be over-interpreting their results and unnecessarily alarming workers,” ACC said in a statement issued on Nov. 19, after it had the opportunity to review the full study. “This study included no data showing if there was actual chemical exposure, from what chemicals, at what levels, and over what period of time [exposure might have occurred] in any particular workplace.”

“Although this is a worthy and important area of research,” ACC said, “it is inappropriate to use such research as the basis for speculation about causes of patterns of cancer rates among occupations without any information of substance about whether there are actual exposures, to what actual substances, and how big [those exposures] might be.”

John Heinze, a scientist who works for a non-profit research association in Washington, concurred.

“This is … basically a survey of the jobs held by over 1,000 Canadian women who had breast cancer compared to an equal number of women who didn’t have breast cancer,” Heinze toldPlastics News.

“Since the case and controls were supposedly matched on other health and demographic variables, any difference in breast cancer incidence was assumed [by the researchers] to be due to occupational exposure to carcinogens and endocrine disruptors,” he said.

“However, occupational exposures were not measured, nor were questions asked specifically regarding occupational exposures,” said Heinze. “So the results … only demonstrate statistical associations, not cause and effect. Without measurement of exposure levels, the statistical comparison of job histories between the two groups is not meaningful [and] the paper offers very little but speculation.”

The 12-person research team does not cite specific evidence or link the higher cancer rate among the automotive workers to any specific chemical exposure.

Instead, the report simply noted that a number of plastics used in plastic manufacturing have ‘identified’ as endocrine-disrupting chemicals and that there are a number of ways workers making plastic-injection molding parts can be exposed to ‘harmful’ chemicals.

“Many plastics have been found to release estrogenic chemicals [and] such additives as phthalates, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers have been identified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” said the report.

“Additionally, some of the monomers present in the manufacturing of polymers have been identified as mutagenic and/or carcinogenic [and] several monomers, additives, and related solvents, such as vinyl chloride, styrene, and acrylonitrile have been identified as mammary carcinogens in animal studies,” said the report. “Cumulative exposure to mixtures of various estrogenic chemicals may compound the effect.”

Similarly, the report did not delineate any specific ways the women in the study had been exposed to such chemicals. It simply pointed out how such workers could potentially be exposed to those chemicals.

“Emissions of vapors or mists from these hot [injection molding] processes can include plasticizers, ultraviolet-protectors, pigments, dyes, flame retardants, un-reacted resin components and decomposition products,” said the report. “Further exposure [to potentially harmful chemicals] can come from skin contact in handling and performing finishing tasks.”

Again, ACC disagreed and noted that there was no determination made by the researchers of any specific exposures.

“The study only demonstrates statistical associations. And, the study only examines occupations, not exposures to any agents or substances,” ACC said.

“Since there is no actual determination of exposures to such substances [and] no documentation of the presence in the workplace” of those substances, “there is no basis to conclude that exposures to such substances are any different for cases rather than controls,” ACC said.

The chemical industry association further pointed out that the American Cancer Society does not list chemical exposures among the well-established risk factors for breast cancer.

ACS instead lists a combination of lifestyle and genetic factors that include gender, aging, genetic risk factors, family history of breast cancer, personal history of breast cancer, race and ethnicity, dense breast tissue, menstrual periods, previous chest radiation, diethylstilbestrol exposure, having children, birth control, hormone therapy after menopause, breastfeeding, alcohol, being overweight or obese and physical activity.

ACC also pointed out that the National Cancer Institute has said that “research does not show a clear link between breast cancer risk and exposure to chemicals in the environment.”

The breast cancer study of the Canadian women was supported by the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology of the University of Windsor and the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health, which received funding from Health Canada through the Women’s Health Contribution Program.

Additional research partners included the Windsor Regional Cancer Centre of Windsor of Windsor Regional Hospital, and the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers with additional funding provided by the Ontario region of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Breast Cancer Society of Canada, the Windsor Essex County Cancer Centre Foundation and the Green Shield Foundation.

Every day in the industrialized world, we ingest small amounts of Bisphenol A, better known as BPA. One of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in industry, BPA can be found in everything from water bottles to food can liners, from children’s toys to register receipts.

After years of careful evaluation, regulators insist it is safe.

Manufacturers have been using the chemical for over 40 years, but recent research has raised concerns. Animal studies suggest that BPA exposure is linked to reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other problems.

Human studies point to more complex issues. Last year, researchers at Harvard found that gestational BPA exposure was linked to behavioral problems, and other studies suggest that BPA increases the risk of obesity.

However, there is a contentious debate over what the research actually means. The chemical industry maintains their confidence that BPA presents no dangers, but many prefer to play it safe. China, Canada, the European Union, and 11 states have all banned the use of BPA in children’s products.

The industry has been resistant, but public demand has forced change.

Earlier this year, Campbell’s Soup announced that it will phase out the controversial chemical from their packaging, and this summer, the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) request for an industry-wide BPA ban in baby bottles and sippy cups was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The companies made it clear that their decisions were meant merely to calm consumer fears, and that their decisions were not because their products present any hazards. According to a press release from the ACC, “The consensus of government agencies across the world is that BPA is safe for use in food-contact materials, including those intended for infants and toddlers.”

Consumer advocates and environmental groups are pushing for even greater BPA restriction, but the FDA said that unless they see solid evidence of toxicity, they will not give in to public pressure.

“And a lot of times, the EPA and FDA don’t have much of a choice. In fact, the legislation defines what the criteria are.”

—Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller, professor, University of Massachusetts

“We make public health decisions based on a careful review of well performed studies, not based on claims or beliefs,” said Dr. Dennis Keefe, director of the FDA’s Office of Food Additive Safety, in March 2012.

Regulators promised to keep an eye out for conclusive evidence, but a leading endocrinologist said that standard toxicity evaluations will always miss the big picture.

Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller is a professor at the University of Massachusetts and a representative for the Endocrine Society—the world’s oldest, largest, and most active organization devoted to clinical hormonal research. Zoeller said that because the regulatory community looks at toxicity in a very narrow way, they are unable to see the problems with BPA.

“Their strategy works great for general toxins like ethanol—it has a linear dose response, and when you do high dose testing, you can easily extrapolate to what’s going to happen at the low dose.” said Zoeller. “But with endocrine disrupters it doesn’t work like that.”

As the name suggests, an endocrine-disrupting chemical causes problems in the body’s hormonal system. Because endocrine sensitivities and genetics vary so widely, a hormone-disrupting chemical like BPA can present a wide range of symptoms and severity.

According to Zoeller, a big part of the controversy over whether BPA is harmful is that independent scientists study it from the context of the dynamic hormonal system, while the FDA approach is strictly black or white—either it is toxic, or it is not.

“I think it’s abundantly clear: The regulatory approach is very static,” said Zoeller. “They have a very bright line around a box, and the toxicity has to reveal itself as being very stereotypical. If it’s not—if it varies from that—then it falls outside the definition of toxicity.”

According to Zoeller and others, the only way to effectively evaluate BPA and other endocrine disrupters is in “a context within the endocrine system that it affects.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) agrees. When the FDA declined a petition to ban BPA earlier this year, the NRDC said that federal regulators were “out-of-step with scientific and medical research” and called for a major overhaul in how the government protects people against dangerous chemicals.

Zoeller said that regulators are not solely to blame. According to him, the laws that define a “valid toxin” for the purpose of regulation are too narrow in scope to begin with.

“Those laws really put the industry (the chemical manufacturer) in the driver’s seat,” said Zoeller. “And a lot of times, the EPA and FDA don’t have much of a choice. In fact, the legislation defines what the criteria are.”

BEIJING (Nov. 13, 1:30 p.m. ET) – Plastics recycler Shenzhen New Rainbow Recycled Materials Technology Co. Ltd. has seen its imports of waste HDPE bottles drop at least 20 percent this year as China’s government has cracked down on bringing waste plastic into the country.

New Rainbow is not alone. Hong Kong-based Lung Shing International Group Ltd. has had imports of recycled plastic drop by one-third through the port of Guangzhou, but Alex Xie, general manager of its Guangzhou factory said Lung Shing considers itself lucky because that’s well below the 50 percent overall drop in that port.

“Costs have increased a lot,” said Xie. “It takes more time to clear customs.”

Governments throughout China have been getting tougher with the country’s plastics recyclers, as they try to cut back on what they say is pollution from an industry that sometimes operates without proper waste water treatment and other environmental controls.

It was topic No. 1 for speakers and attendees at the ChinaReplas 2012 conference and trade show, held Nov. 6-7 in Beijing, as industry representatives gathered to hear government officials discuss their latest plans, which include stricter rules on importing scrap plastic and closing unlicensed companies.

Guan Aiguo, chairman and managing director of Tangshan China Recycling Development Co. Ltd., said the industry will undergo dramatic restructuring in the next three to five years as costs rise and government regulations cut down on pollution.

In a speech to the conference, he said “99 percent” of China’s scrap plastics companies do not have equipment to properly clean the water they use in their factories.

“They do not process or clean the water,” said Guan, whose Tangshan, Hebei province-based company owns plastics recycling factories and invests in industrial parks for recyclers. “They emit it directly. It is a very serious problem.”

Many of the recycling plants are operated by farmers, using simple technology, and are not safe places to work, he said.

Guan said he finds it difficult to visit such factories for more than 10 minutes because of their environmental conditions, but people spend hours a day in them and become ill after years of work: “They sacrifice their health for money.”

Guan said his company is opening industrial parks for recyclers, with water treatment and other environmental facilities and 24-hour fire protection brigades.

Such parks are also part of the Chinese government’s strategy.

Wu Gen Ping, an official from China’s General Administration of Customs, said instituting such parks in Guangdong is part of the reason imports went down there.

Those zones have achieved “obvious results” in better waste management, he said, and he encouraged companies to look at them.

He also said the customs inspectors and China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection are working closely together.

For example, Wu said the Guangzhou customs office in the middle of the year gave environmental regulators a list of local companies importing waste without proper licenses, and environmental officials shut those factories down.

Guangzhou and other ports in Guangdong province began a pilot program last year that has customs officials much more closely scrutinizing imports of waste plastic, and government officials plan to expand it to other parts of the country, Wu said.

It’s had a big impact in Guangdong, home to more than half of China’s plastics recycling companies. According to customs figures, through the first half of the year, recycled plastic imports through Guangzhou’s port dropped 52 percent and through Shenzhen, 13 percent.

But it’s not clear if taking the program across China will cut imports in other places in the same way.

Jason Wang, secretary general of the Beijing-based China Scrap Plastics Association, said ports in Guangdong Province have historically been much looser than other parts of China, so the rules are bringing Guangdong more in line with the rest of the country.

He said he does not expect a dramatic impact when the program is broadened, a point echoed by other recycling companies at the event, which was sponsored by CSPA.

Customs figures showed that imports through other ports actually increased in the first six months.

Shanghai was up 40 percent to become the largest single port for waste plastic imports, and Tianjin up 53 percent, becoming number four. Shenzhen and Guangzhou were still the second and third biggest ports, respectively, even with their sizable drops.

Among Chinese companies at the event, some saw opportunities in the tightening.

The new rules do make it tougher for companies but better environmental protection will in the long-run help industry, said Xue Bao Shan, president of Shanghai Changling Import and Export Trading Co. Ltd., which has two factories in Shanghai.

The company buys plastics from Japan and Korea and reprocesses it for sale in the domestic market. Xue said that only higher-quality companies will survive, and middle-sized firms like his need to seize opportunities to expand.

It was a point echoed by Amy Wen, sales manager with Qingzhou Hua Lu and Renewable Resources Co. Ltd. in Qingzhou, Shandong province.

Her company has invested in a new HDPE flake line and is looking at a PET flake line, because it sees government closing factories with serious environmental problems and being stricter about imports. It needs to invest and upgrade, she said.

Tangshan’s Guan said in his speech that he used to believe that China did not need technology to recycle plastics, but he said seeing companies in other countries has convinced him that investing in better equipment is crucial to reducing pollution.

“If we don’t use technology, we can’t achieve this,” he said.

By David Eldridge | EUROPEAN PLASTICS NEWS

WEISBADEN, GERMANY (Nov. 8, 1:30 p.m. ET) — The frustration of the plastics industry at the poor perception of its sustainability and health credentials surfaced at the PolyTalk event organized by PlasticsEurope.

The September event in Wiesbaden brought together business leaders from the European plastics industry, with representatives of the green lobby and officials from European organizations.

Some sympathy was expressed by keynote speakers Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for the Environment, and Sir Jonathan Porritt, founder and director of Forum for the Future, a United Kingdom-based sustainability think tank.

Porritt said he could sense the frustration of the plastics industry in not getting across the message that it contributes to sustainable developments in automotive, packaging and construction.

He also agreed that environmental organizations can sometimes misuse the trust that society places in them in the way they characterize sustainability issues.

However, Porritt warned the plastics industry against relying on finite resources of hydrocarbons for raw materials. Continuing to do so will not stop the plastics industry developing sustainable innovations, he said: “But it will stop the industry from becoming the force for good in society that it needs to be.”

A panel discussion at PolyTalk on “sound science vs. environmental and health concerns” focused on frustrations arising from plastics-related health scares, including the multiple studies conducted on the health impact of bisphenol-A (BPA).

Martin Brudermüller, vice chairman of BASF’s executive board, called for more trust of plastics companies and of scientific studies into potential health risks. He highlighted the need to find consensus about health risks through agreeing the conditions for risk assessment and then all sides sticking to the criteria.

Elke Anklam, director of the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection at the European Commission, said a consensus on potential health risks, should not exclude the studies carried out by companies in the industry.

Axel Singhofen, health policy adviser to the Greens in the European Parliament, agreed but said industry studies must not “contaminate” the decision making process.

He criticized the European Food Safety Authority for the way it excluded some BPA studies in its multi-study assessment of BPA’s health risks. He also questioned the transparency of EFSA.

Brudermüller said that such attitudes “do not lead us forward” to finding consensus on risk assessment.

Commissioner Janez Potocnik highlighted the work of the Reach program, which has so far placed 84 chemicals on the EU’s list of substances of very high concern.

Singhofen responded: “The Reach list has taken 15 years to get this far, and it is still not complete. The industry has been defending phthalates for ten years.”

Another panelist, Susan Freinkel, a journalist and author, said the plastics industry should stop fighting regulation against the use of BPA in vulnerable areas such as baby products. “I think that’s where trust gets eroded,” she said.

Wrapping up the event, Patrick Thomas, president of PlasticsEurope and CEO of Bayer MaterialScience, said it is important the industry tries to understand concerns that are raised, not just dismiss them.

By Mike Verespej | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF

WASHINGTON (Nov. 2, 2:15 p.m. ET) — In the aftermath of pressure from environmental groups and legislators, the California Environmental Protection Agency has lowered the estimated recycling rate of plastic bags in the 11th-grade teachers’ guide of the state’s K-12 environmental curriculum.

The revised text also deletes a section that had listed several advantages of plastic bags. Among them: that plastic grocery bags require 70 percent less energy to manufacture than paper bags, that they cost less to transport, that they can be reused and that they can be recycled and made into different products. Also deleted was a list of five questions that students could use to determine whether there were advantages to plastic shopping bags.

Instead, the revised guide — issued Oct. 26 — simply says that “plastic bags are durable, lightweight and take up less space than paper bags … and can be recycled.”

With regard to the plastic bag recycling rate, the new text hedges on what that rate may be, saying that “recycling rates specific to plastic shopping bags are not currently calculated by state or federal agencies.”

However, the revised guide does include a reference to a CalRecycle estimate suggesting that recycling rates for plastic bags distributed by stores in California was 3 percent in 2009; and another to an EPA estimate that the nationwide recycling rate for bags, sacks and plastic wrap is 9 percent.

The previous version of the guide, issued in August 2011, had said that 12 percent of Americans recycle plastic bags and film, triggering an outcry from both environmentalists and legislators. That 12 percent figure was taken from federal EPA data submitted to the California EPA by the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council, which has denied trying to influence the curriculum.

“The purpose of our comments was to correct factual inaccuracies, and to present a more complete view of plastic bags’ environmental attributes — including their benefits — which were absent from the draft,” said Steve Russell, vice president of ACC’s plastics department. “Our comments were submitted via email and through an online form on Cal/EPA’s website.

“When Cal/EPA developed its curricula, the agency … posted an invitation [for public comment] on draft versions of the curricula,” he said. “The American Chemistry Council and dozens of others provided written input, at the request of Cal/EPA. Even some of ACC’s critics agree that we simply did what we and others were asked to do.”

To suggest that the Washington-based ACC tried to unduly influence the process “distorts and misrepresents public process and the role the ACC played in it,” Russell said. “We submitted comments in response to the state’s public solicitation for input.”

An Oct. 29 story from California Watch — an online reporting initiative of the Center for Investigative Reporting — said that Bryan Ehlers, Cal/EPA’s assistant secretary of education and quality programs called the revised curriculum “excellent.”

“This process gave us the opportunity to go through it with a fine-toothed comb,” with the goal of producing a “thoughtful and reasoned discussion about the consequences of consumption,” Ehlers said.

Initially, Cal/EPA had outsourced the development and editing of the curriculum to Gerald Lieberman, director of the State Education and Environment Roundtable, a nonprofit that had been formed by education departments in 16 states to enhance environmental education. In that initial draft, Lieberman had incorporated many of the public comments submitted by ACC and had added the section discussing the advantages of plastic bags.

Originally appeared on NPR’s The Two Way

by SOPHIA JONES

Move over Abba, Sweden has found new fame. The small Nordic country is breaking records — in waste. Sweden’s program of generating energy from garbage is wildly successful, but recently its success has also generated a surprising issue: There is simply not enough trash.

Only 4 percent of Swedish garbage ends up in a landfill, according to Swedish Waste Management. Due to its efficiency in converting waste to renewable energy, Sweden has recently begun importing around 800,000 tons of trash annually from other countries.

Norway is now paying Sweden to take its garbage. Swedish sights are also set on Bulgaria, Romania and Italy as future trash exporters, as Catarina Ostlund, a senior advisor for the country’s environmental protection agency, told PRI. Those countries rely heavily on landfills – a highly inefficient and environmentally degrading system.

Sweden is leading the way in waste management, but it is one of few. We live in a world where nearly 70 percent of deep sea Arctic creatures are in contact with human trash like plastic bags and beer bottles. In the United States, where the EPA says 250 million tons of trash was generated in 2010 alone, only about 34 percent was recycled.

Sweden creates energy for around 250,000 homes and powers one-fifth of the district heating system, Swedish Waste Managements says. Its incineration plants offer a look into the future where countries could potentially make money off of their trash — and not just dump it in the ocean or bury it in mass landfills.

“I would say maybe in the future, this waste will be valued even more,” Ostlund said. “So maybe you could sell your waste, because there will be a shortage of resources within the world.”

Leave it to the Scandinavians to make even trash chic.

The Eugene City Council on Monday night flexed its environmental muscle, approving a ban on plastic bags and a statement in opposition to coal trains.

The council voted 6-2 to ban thin plastic bags from all of the city’s retailers. On a closer 5-3 vote, councilors approved a resolution against the railroad shipment of coal through the city.

The ban will take effect in six months, in order to give stores time to eliminate their plastic bag supplies.

Environmentalists asked the council for the plastic bag ban, saying that discarded bags do not degrade, with many ending up in the ocean where they pollute and endanger marine life for years.

The ordinance implementing the ban requires retailers to charge a minimum of 5 cents for each paper bag dispensed in place of plastic bags.

Councilors Mike Clark and George Poling voted against the ban.

Clark said he supported the ban until the nickel-per-paper-bag minimum charge was added. “This is about controlling people’s behavior and getting people to act differently,” he said.

Councilor Alan Zelenka, the ordinance’s main author, noted that the state’s grocers association supports the fee as an incentive for shoppers to use reusable bags and to allow retailers to offset the higher cost of paper bags.

Without the 5 cent fee, “there will be a massive shift to paper bags” by shoppers, which doesn’t achieve the real goal of getting people to use reusable bags, he said.

Joining Zelenka in support of the ban were Councilors Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor and Pat Farr.

The ban contains exemptions, such as the bags used to carry produce, meat and bulk food. Restaurants could continue to use the bags for hot carry-out food and drinks. Thicker plastic bags, including those given to customers at department stores, would still be allowed.

Eugene will become the third Oregon city with a plastic bag ban, joining Portland and Corvallis.

Since the proposal was first introduced last year, the council heard from many residents who said they favor the ban, in contrast to relatively little public opposition.

The coal train resolution arose in response to the possibility of Wyoming and Montana coal being shipped by railroad through Eugene to Coos Bay. A yet-to-be built export terminal on Coos Bay would be used to put coal on ships bound for South Korea, where it would be burned to produce electricity.

The resolution directs city attorneys to research whether the city could use state and federal public health and safety laws to prevent the transport of coal in its boundaries. It also supports the request by Gov. John Kitzhaber for the federal government to conduct a comprehensive environmental review of how coal exports and the burning of coal in Asia would affect the Northwest.

Yet the council’s resolution could prove to be more symbolic than substantive.

The Surface Transportation Board, the federal agency that regulates railroads, has said state and local governments can’t enact laws that would significantly interfere with railroad operations, such as prohibiting the movement of trains on existing rail lines.

Coastal leaders opposed Eugene’s resolution, saying the $250 million export terminal and $180 million in improvements to the port-owned rail line between Eugene and the coast would provide critically needed jobs to coast communities and beyond.

Farr joined Clark and Poling in opposing the resolution. Voting for it were Zelenka, Pryor, Ortiz, Brown and Taylor.

“If anything is a no-brainer, this is it,” said Taylor.

While the council resolution may not be able to prevent the passage of coal trains through the city, “we can express an opinion and stand up for the environment and common sense,” Taylor said.

The city’s resolution will be sent to state and federal elected officials, including Kitzhaber, U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, and appointed U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

Several people spoke in favor of the resolution during the public forum portion of the council’s meeting. A few people spoke against it, mainly because they said the coal export project would create jobs.

The Coos Bay proposal is one of a handful of coal export projects being considered in the Northwest.

Elise Hamner, a spokeswoman for the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay, said the city of Eugene’s resolution will not affect its work on a proposal that port officials have dubbed “Project Mainstay.” The port is negotiating with three firms interested in developing the export terminal on the north spit of Coos Bay.

“The entities involved in Project Mainstay will make a determination whether to proceed with a development based on results of internal business analyses related to global market issues, permitting, transportation infrastructure investment and other matters,” Hamner said Monday.