    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          A SEA OF PROBLEMS: IMPACTS
                  OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON OCEANS AND WILDLIFE

    =======================================================================

                               OVERSIGHT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           Tuesday, October 29, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-27

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    38-565 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                        DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                   ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Paul Cook, CA
    TJ Cox, CA                           Bruce Westerman, AR
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Garret Graves, LA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Debra A. Haaland, NM                 Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Daniel Webster, FL
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Liz Cheney, WY
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Mike Johnson, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Wm. Lacy Clay, MO                    John R. Curtis, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Kevin Hern, OK
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Russ Fulcher, ID
    A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Darren Soto, FL
    Ed Case, HI
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Vacancy

                         David Watkins, Chief of Staff
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                    Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                     ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

                            JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair
                 TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Doug Lamborn, CO
    Jim Costa, CA                        Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Garret Graves, LA
        CNMI                             Jody B. Hice, GA
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Daniel Webster, FL
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Mike Johnson, LA
    Ed Case, HI                          Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Russ Fulcher, ID
    TJ Cox, CA                           Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
    Joe Neguse, CO
    Mike Levin, CA
    Joe Cunningham, SC
    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, October 29, 2019........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Danson, Ted, Actor, Advocate, and Board Member, Oceana, Los
          Angeles, California........................................     7
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
        Jambeck, Jenna, Professor of Environmental Engineering,
          University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.....................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    34
        Parras, Juan, Founder, Executive Director, Texas
          Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS), Houston,
          Texas......................................................    12
            Prepared statement of....................................    14
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    16
        Radoszewski, Tony, President and CEO, Plastics Industry
          Association (PLASTICS), Washington, DC.....................    39
            Prepared statement of....................................    40
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    46

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................    74

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Lowenthal

            Ball Corporation, Written Testimony from Kathleen Pitre,
              Chief Sustainability Office, dated November 12, 2019...    60

            Department of Energy and Environment, Letter from Tommy
              Wells, Director, dated November 13, 2019...............    63

            Nature Climate Change, Letters, Vol. 9, May 2019,
              ``Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of
              plastics,'' by Jiajia Zheng and Sangwon Suh............    69

                         OVERSIGHT HEARING ON A SEA OF.
         PROBLEMS: IMPACTS OF PLASTIC POLLUTION ON OCEANS AND WILDLIFE

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, October 29, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:27 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S.
    Lowenthal [Member of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Sablan, Van Drew, Case,
    Cox, Neguse, Cunningham; McClintock, Lamborn, and Graves.
        Also present: Representative Haaland.
        Dr. Lowenthal. The Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and
    Wildlife will come to order.
        I may look like Congressman Huffman, but I am not.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Lowenthal. I know it is a shock. I am Congressman
    Lowenthal. Congressman Huffman is back in Sonoma, dealing with
    the wildfires that are there, and never was able to get back
    here to Washington. We are all hoping that the fires subside,
    that many people are safe, and that Mr. Huffman returns soon.
        With that, the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
    will come to order.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on ``A
    Sea of Problems: the Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Oceans and
    Wildlife.''
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority
    Member, the Vice Chair, and the Vice Ranking Member. This will
    allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner, and help Members
    keep to their schedules.
        Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
    are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the
    close of the hearing, whichever comes first.
        Hearing no objections, so ordered.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. S. ALAN LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Lowenthal. I am going to open up now, and I want to
    welcome all the witnesses. We are here today to discuss a
    pressing environmental issue, and that is plastic pollution.
        Certainly, single-use plastics have made life easier, but
    these materials come at a much higher cost than many would like
    to admit. Plastics last for centuries in the natural
    environment, and are found nearly everywhere on our planet.
        Last year, I witnessed the impact of plastic pollution on
    wildlife in Antarctica, one of the few places on earth that has
    been relatively untouched by human activity, but certainly not
    untouched by the scourge of plastics.
        Personally, I have been involved in trying to tackle the
    growing plastic crisis for over 20 years, working with my
    constituent and friend, Captain Charles Moore, who created the
    scientific research organization Algalita, and who did some of
    the early research on the plastic garbage gyre.
        There is an estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic that
    enter the oceans each year at a rate of about one garbage truck
    per minute, threatening biodiversity and accumulating in the
    seafood that we eat and in the water that we drink. Plastics
    have even been found in water samples right here in the Capitol
    Visitors Center.
        Plastics are also making climate change worse. The global
    life cycle emissions from one year's plastic production
    throughout the United States are about the same as 462 coal-
    fired power plants per year, and that number is rising.
        Plastic production is an environmental justice issue, also.
    Petrochemical factories and incineration facilities are often
    located in low-income communities, where local health impacts
    and air quality impacts are quite significant, but frequently
    are ignored.
        Finally, in this Subcommittee, we need to look at solutions
    to deal with, for example, ghost fishing gear, fishing gear
    that has been lost at sea but continues to catch fish, marine
    mammals, turtles, birds, and corals.
        It is clear that we need to reduce plastic pollution.
    Higher recycling commitments, and bans and taxes on single-use
    plastic items can be part of the solution, but we must expand
    our tools to address this growing environmental and public
    health problem.
        In this Committee, we switched to reusable pitchers and
    glasses for water, rather than the disposable plastic water
    bottles we see so often around the Capitol. But not every
    switch is as easy, and not everyone has the option.
        The financial burden of cleaning up pollution should not be
    solely on the taxpayers. It is imperative that the companies
    that manufacture and sell these products take ownership of
    their environmental impacts. Congress needs to step up, too.
        It is for this reason that I have been working on
    comprehensive legislation with Senator Udall. Our legislation
    seeks to create a more circular approach by putting in place an
    extended producer responsibility program, implementing
    recycling content standards, as well as phasing out certain
    single-use-only items that have more sustainable alternatives.
        I am excited to announce that we should have a discussion
    draft of this legislation quite soon, which we will disseminate
    publicly, and I encourage all of you to let me know your
    thoughts and comments after its release.
        Some Federal agencies are also doing their part. NOAA's
    Marine Debris Program recently funded 14 new projects
    addressing aspects of this problem. However, the $2.7 million
    provided to these projects doesn't even come close to
    addressing the scale of the ocean plastic problem.
        The bottom line is this: We need to do more, we need to
    look at a broader range of solutions that are going to prevent
    wildlife from being strangled, and to keep microplastics from
    ending up on our plate.
        With that, I look forward to hearing more from our
    witnesses about their ideas.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Lowenthal follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in
                     Congress from the State of California
        Today we're here to discuss a pressing environmental issue: plastic
    pollution.

        Certainly, single-use plastics have made life easier. But these
    materials come at a much higher cost than many would like to admit.
    Plastics last for centuries in the natural environment and are found
    nearly everywhere on our planet. Last year I witnessed the impacts of
    plastic pollution on wildlife in Antarctica, one of the few places on
    earth that has been relatively untouched by human activity.
        Personally, I have been involved in trying to tackle the growing
    plastic crisis for over 20 years, working with my constituent and
    friend, Captain Charles Moore, who created the scientific research
    organization Algalita and who did the early research on the pacific
    garbage gyre.
        An estimated 8 million metric tons of plastic enter the oceans each
    year at a rate of about one garbage truck per minute, threatening
    biodiversity and accumulating in the seafood that we eat and in the
    water that we drink. Plastic has even been found in water samples from
    the Capitol Visitors Center!
        Plastics are also making climate change worse. The global life
    cycle emissions from one year's plastic production are about the same
    as 462 coal-fired power plants per year--and that number is rising.
        Plastic production is an environmental justice issue too.
    Petrochemical factories and incineration facilities are often located
    in low-income communities, where local health impacts and air quality
    impacts are significant but often ignored.
        Finally, in this Subcommittee, we need to look at solutions to deal
    with ghost fishing gear--fishing gear that's been lost at sea but
    continues to catch fish, marine mammals, turtles, birds, and corals.
        It's clear that we need to reduce plastic pollution. Higher
    recycling commitments and bans and taxes on single-use plastic items
    can be part of the solution, but we must expand our tools to address
    this growing environmental and public health problem.
        In this Committee, we switched to reusable pitchers and glasses for
    water, rather than the disposable plastic water bottles we see so often
    around the Capitol. But not every switch is as easy, and not everyone
    has the option.
        The financial burden of cleaning up pollution should not just be on
    the taxpayers. It's imperative that the companies that manufacture and
    sell these products take ownership of their environmental impacts.
    Congress needs to step up, too.
        It is for this reason that I have been working on comprehensive
    legislation with Senator Udall. Our legislation seeks to create a more
    circular approach by putting in place an extended producer
    responsibility program, implementing recycling content standards, as
    well as phasing out certain single-use only items that have more
    sustainable alternatives available.
        I am excited to announce that we should have a discussion draft of
    the legislation very soon, which we will disseminate publicly, and I
    encourage all of you to let me know your thoughts and comments after it
    is released.
        Some Federal agencies are also doing their part--NOAA's Marine
    Debris Program recently funded 14 new projects addressing aspects of
    this problem. However, the $2.7 million provided to these projects
    doesn't even come close to addressing the scale of the ocean plastic
    problem.
        The bottom line is this: we need to do more and we need to look at
    a broader range of solutions to prevent wildlife from being strangled
    and to keep microplastics from ending up on our plate.
        With that, I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses about
    their ideas, and I will now invite the Ranking Member to share his
    remarks.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. I will now invite the Ranking Member to
    share his remarks.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Subcommittee
    meets today to hear testimony on plastics and their impact on
    our oceans.
        From the tenor of the written testimony, it appears the
    Majority is blaming American consumers for the plastic waste
    that reaches our oceans, and is proposing to place restrictions
    on them that will dramatically reduce the convenience and
    higher quality of life that plastics have contributed to our
    modern society, while increasing costs dramatically.
        Blaming America first seems to be a recurring theme, but
    the facts paint a very different picture. A 2017 study
    published in the Environmental Science & Technology magazine
    found that between 88-95 percent of all the plastic debris that
    enters our oceans comes from 10 rivers, none of which is
    anywhere close to the United States--8 of those rivers are in
    Asia, and 2 are in Africa.
        According to a 2015 study, the top 20 marine plastic
    polluters produced as much as 10.76 million metric tons of
    waterborne plastic debris. The United States generated just
    0.11 million metric tons, barely 1 percent. Indeed, the entire
    United States contributed less waterborne plastic pollution
    than North Korea.
        So, who does the Majority blame for this? American
    consumers. But, as Jeane Kirkpatrick once observed, they always
    blame America first.
        According to the EPA, Americans have increased plastic
    recycling from 20,000 tons in 1980 to 3.1 million tons in 2015.
    That is a 155-fold increase. American consumers go to great
    lengths to responsibly dispose of plastic waste, and the
    numbers show that. American consumers are heroes, not villains,
    in this fight against plastic pollution of our oceans. We
    should be celebrating them, not punishing them.
        Yet, that is just what draconian restrictions on plastic
    use would do, starting with the 1.7 million families who depend
    on plastics manufacturing to put food on the table, roofs over
    their heads, and taxes into our government coffers. The single
    largest state employing them remains my home state of
    California, where 80,000 Californians are directly employed in
    the plastics industry.
        The misplaced object of the left's ire appears to be
    single-use plastic containers, the toothpaste tube, the shampoo
    bottle, the plastic bag. They criticize them as wasteful, since
    the plastic is used once and discarded, and yet takes between
    50 and 1,000 years to decay. Well, if they are properly
    disposed of--and Americans do--I have to ask, what exactly is
    that problem?
        The most common single-use packaging of the ancient world,
    once we had progressed from animal skins and gourds, was the
    amphora, usually a ceramic. A massive hill called Mount
    Testaccio in Rome is composed of discarded amphora, which have
    not degraded in nearly 2,000 years. Yet, the world is not worse
    for it, and the Romans were infinitely better off for it. Which
    begs the question: If we are going to ban single-use plastic
    containers, exactly what will replace them?
        How about your toothpaste? Before plastics, toothpaste came
    in collapsible metal tubes. Do the opponents of plastics find
    this a more environmentally-friendly container? The toothpaste
    tube was invented to protect consumers from the unhygienic
    practice of getting toothpaste in glass jars and dipping your
    toothbrush into them. Shall we return to glass jars? Before
    that, toothpaste came in powdered form in cardboard boxes and
    wax paper, which required mixing a batch every time you wanted
    to brush your teeth.
        Plastics have largely replaced aluminum as the best
    container to protect food against food spoilage. Before
    aluminum, it was tin. It takes 4 pounds of bauxite, usually by
    strip mining, and 7\1/2\ kilowatts of electricity to make 1
    pound of aluminum. Do the plastic critics really think an
    environmentally-friendly alternative is to return to the era of
    metal containers?
        Before metal containers, glass was commonly used. Glass
    takes roughly 1 million years to decompose, 1,000 times longer
    than the longest estimate for plastic decomposition. I suppose
    we could go back to cardboard and paper, but I remember the
    campaign a decade ago to ban paper bags as wasteful and
    environmentally offensive, so we dutifully replaced them with
    plastic bags, which have now attracted the ire of the
    environmental left.
        Single-use plastics, properly disposed of, mean greater
    convenience and lower prices for American consumers, and a much
    smaller environmental footprint than all of the different
    packaging materials that they have replaced.
        So, I am very interested in hearing today why Americans,
    who have an exemplary record of responsible plastic disposal
    and recycling, are to blame for the excesses of other people in
    other countries, and why those same Americans should now be
    punished with higher prices, less convenience, and a lower
    standard of living.
        And, finally, I would like to know what are the plastics
    critics proposing as an alternative to plastic containers that
    they haven't already rejected over the years.
        I yield back.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
        Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Ranking Member,
                  Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife
        The Subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on plastics and
    their impact on our oceans. From the tenor of the written testimony, it
    appears that the Majority is blaming American consumers for the plastic
    waste that reaches our oceans and is proposing to place restrictions on
    them that will dramatically reduce the convenience and higher quality
    of life that plastics have contributed to our modern society.
        Blaming America first seems to be a recurring theme, but the facts
    paint a very different picture. A 2017 study published in the
    Environmental Science & Technology magazine found that between 88-95
    percent of all the plastic debris that enters our oceans comes from 10
    rivers--none of which is anywhere close to the United States: 8 of
    those rivers are in Asia and the other 2 are in Africa.
        According to a 2015 study, the top 20 marine plastic polluters
    produced as much as 10.76 million metric tons of waterborne plastic
    debris. The United States generated just 0.11 million metric tons--or
    barely 1 percent. Indeed, the entire United States contributed less
    waterborne plastic pollution than North Korea.
        Who does the Majority blame for this? American consumers. But as
    Jeane Kirkpatrick once observed, they always blame America first.
        According to the EPA, Americans have increased plastic recycling
    from 20,000 tons in 1980 to 3.1 million tons in 2015. American
    consumers go to great lengths to responsibly dispose of plastic waste--
    and the numbers show that. American consumers are heroes--not
    villains--in the fight against plastics pollution of our oceans. We
    should be celebrating them and not punishing them!
        Yet, that is just what Draconian restrictions on plastic use would
    do, starting with the 1.7 million families who depend on plastics
    manufacturing to put food on the table, roofs over their heads and
    taxes into our coffers. The single largest state employing them remains
    my home state of California, where 80,000 Californians are directly
    employed in the plastics industry.
        The misplaced object of the left's ire appears to be single-use
    plastic containers: the toothpaste tube, the shampoo bottle, the
    plastic bag. They criticize them as wasteful, since the plastic is used
    once and discarded and yet take between 50 and 1,000 years to decay.
        If they are properly disposed of--and Americans do that better than
    just about any other people on this planet--I have to ask, what exactly
    is the problem? The most common single-use packaging of the ancient
    world--once we had progressed from animal skins and gourds--was the
    amphora, usually a ceramic. A massive hill called Mt. Testaccio in Rome
    is composed of discarded amphorae, which have not degraded in nearly
    2,000 years. Yet the world isn't the worse for it--and the Romans were
    infinitely better off for it.
        Which begs the question, if we are going to ban single-use plastic
    containers, exactly what will replace them? How about your toothpaste?
    Before plastics, toothpaste came in collapsible metal tubes. Do the
    opponents of plastics find this a more environmentally friendly
    container? The toothpaste tube was invented to protect consumers from
    the unhygienic practice of getting toothpaste in glass jars and dipping
    your toothbrush into them. Shall we return to glass jars? Before that,
    toothpaste came in powder form in cardboard boxes and wax paper, which
    required mixing a batch every time you brushed your teeth.
        Plastics have largely replaced aluminum as the best container to
    protect against food spoilage. Before aluminum, it was tin. It takes 4
    pounds of bauxite usually by strip mining and 7\1/2\ kilowatts of
    electricity to make 1 pound of aluminum. Do the plastic critics really
    think an environmentally friendly alternative is to return to the era
    of metal containers? Before metal containers, glass was commonly used.
    Glass takes roughly 1 million years to decompose--1,000 times longer
    than the longest estimate for plastic decomposition. I suppose we could
    go back to cardboard and paper, but I remember the campaign a decade
    ago to ban paper bags as wasteful and environmentally offensive. So we
    dutifully replaced them with plastic bags, which have now attracted the
    ire of the environmental left.
        Single use plastics--properly disposed of--mean greater convenience
    and lower prices for American consumers, and a much smaller
    environmental footprint than all the different packaging materials that
    they replaced.
        So I'm very interested in hearing why Americans--with an exemplary
    record of responsible plastic disposal and recycling--are to blame for
    the excesses of other people in other countries; and why those same
    Americans should now be punished with higher prices, less convenience
    and a lower standard of living. And finally, I would like to know what
    the plastics critics are proposing as an alternative to plastic
    containers, that they haven't already rejected over the years.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. I am going to ask unanimous consent that the
    gentleperson from New Mexico, Representative Haaland, be
    allowed to sit on the dais and participate in today's
    proceedings.
        Without objection, that is ordered.
        Now I am going to introduce our witnesses.
        Our first witness is Mr. Ted Danson. You may know him
    better as Michael on ``The Good Place,'' or Sam on ``Cheers.''
    But Mr. Danson is also the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors
    at Oceana, where he has been closely involved since its
    inception.
        Our next witness will be Mr. Juan Parras, who is the
    Founder and Executive Director at the Texas Environmental
    Justice Advocacy Service, or TEJAS.
        Following him we will hear from Dr. Jenna Jambeck,
    Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of
    Georgia, and the lead author of a groundbreaking study on
    plastic.
        And, finally, our last witness will be Tony Radoszewski,
    who is the President and CEO of the Plastics Industry
    Association.
        Let me remind all the witnesses that, under our Committee
    Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but
    that their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
    green. After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on. Your
    time will have expired when the red light comes on, and I will
    ask you to please complete your statement.
        I will also allow the entire panel to testify before
    questioning witnesses.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Danson to testify.
        Welcome to our Committee.

      STATEMENT OF TED DANSON, ACTOR, ADVOCATE, AND BOARD MEMBER,
                    OCEANA, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Danson. I would like to thank the Chair and Ranking
    Member, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to
    testify on plastic pollution.
        I am the Vice Chair of Oceana's Board of Directors. Oceana
    is the largest international advocacy organization dedicated
    solely to ocean conservation. I have been working on ocean
    issues for more than 30 years. In the late 1980s, I co-founded
    the American Oceans Campaign, which then joined with Oceana in
    2002. I am here to testify today about the growing problem of
    plastic pollution that is threatening our oceans.
        Almost from the moment we wake up, to the time we go to
    bed, we are faced with throwaway plastic. We face it when we
    brush our teeth with a toothbrush made of plastic, and squeeze
    toothpaste out of a plastic tube, and when we wash our hair
    with shampoo and conditioner from plastic bottles. The rest of
    our daily routines might include one or several coffees in cups
    with plastic lids, lunch in plastic take-out containers with
    plastic utensils, and grocery shopping, where single-use
    plastic is unavoidable. There isn't a place on earth untouched
    by the pollution from all this plastic.
        The list of marine animals affected by plastic pollution
    grows. Plastic has been consumed by an estimated 90 percent of
    seabird species, and eaten by every species of sea turtle. Even
    our corals are threatened.
        In addition to polluting the marine environment, plastic
    poses a risk to human health. We are now seeing plastic in our
    water, our food, soil, air, and bodies. Plastic particles have
    been found in everything from honey and beer to salt and tea.
        Plastic is also affecting our climate. If plastic was a
    country, it would be the planet's fifth largest emitter of
    greenhouse gases. With plastic production rates anticipated to
    increase, so will plastic's effects on the climate and oceans.
        The most important thing to remember about plastic is that
    it lasts for centuries. This is what makes single-use plastics
    so profoundly flawed. They are created from a material made to
    last forever, but are designed to be used once and thrown away.
        Simply improving recycling rates will not solve the plastic
    crisis. Of all the plastic waste ever generated, only 9 percent
    has been recycled. That means the vast majority was sent to a
    landfill, incinerated, or ended up polluting our natural
    environment, including our oceans. Recycling is like trying to
    mop up water from an overflowing bathtub, while the faucet is
    still running. We need to turn off the faucet and reduce the
    production of plastic.
        Companies need to significantly reduce the amount of
    single-use plastic they are putting onto the market, and offer
    consumers plastic-free choices for their products.
    Unfortunately, companies aren't doing enough, and that is why
    we need your help.
        Policies governing the production and use of single-use
    plastic are effective, and these policies are becoming more
    common around the world and across this country. The European
    Union, Peru, Chile, and Canada have all announced or are
    implementing policies to reduce plastic pollution. U.S. cities,
    counties, and states have taken the initiative, passing
    policies to reduce single-use plastics. But ultimately,
    comprehensive U.S. Federal action is needed.
        This Committee should use its authority to tackle the
    problem. I applaud you for stopping the use of plastic water
    bottles in Committee hearings.
        The National Park Service had a policy to encourage
    national parks to stop selling water in plastic bottles.
    Unfortunately, the policy has been reversed. The Committee
    should make our national parks, wildlife refuges, marine
    sanctuaries, and other Federal lands and waters into single-use
    plastic-free zones.
        I urge Congress to pass Federal legislation that stops
    plastic pollution at the source, that significantly reduces the
    production of this everlasting pollutant, that holds
    corporations responsible for this global crisis, and enables
    states and cities to continue to lead the way on solutions.
        Don't fall for the false promise of recycling. And please
    don't stoop to incineration. We must stop the runaway increase
    in plastic production and reduce the amount of plastic that
    companies are making and foisting on us, because it will last
    for centuries. We have no more time to waste. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Danson follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Ted Danson, Vice Chair, Oceana Board of
                       Directors, Los Angeles, California
        Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member
    McClintock and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify
    today on plastic pollution's effects on our oceans. My name is Ted
    Danson, and I am the Vice Chair of Oceana's board of directors. Oceana
    is the largest international advocacy organization dedicated solely to
    ocean conservation. We work in North, South and Central America, Asia
    and Europe to advocate for science-based policies that will restore the
    ocean's abundance and biodiversity.
        I've been working on ocean issues for more than 30 years. My
    interest in the oceans started when one day, I decided to take my
    daughters--who were 4 and 8 years old at the time--to go swimming at
    the beach in Southern California. We were ready to go and running
    toward the water, but were stopped by a sign that said, ``no swimming,
    ocean polluted.''
        My girls couldn't believe it, and neither could I. The ocean was
    closed. They asked me, ``Why, why can't we go swimming--in this
    beautiful ocean?'' So, in the late 1980s, I co-founded the American
    Oceans Campaign to clean up beaches and the ocean. And for 15 years, we
    worked to protect the oceans from oil drilling and other threats.
        To expand the capacity of the American Oceans Campaign, we decided
    to join with Oceana in 2002. Oceana has protected more than 4.5 million
    square miles of ocean and won over 200 victories to stop overfishing,
    habitat destruction, pollution and the killing of threatened species. I
    am here today to testify about the growing problem of plastic pollution
    that is threatening our oceans.
        Almost from the moment we wake up to the time we go to bed, we are
    faced with throwaway plastic. We face it when we brush our teeth with a
    toothbrush made of plastic and squeeze toothpaste out of a plastic
    tube, and when we wash our hair with shampoo and conditioner from
    plastic bottles. The rest of our daily routines might include one or
    several coffees in cups with plastic lids, lunch in plastic take-out
    containers with plastic utensils, and grocery shopping, where single-
    use plastic is unavoidable.
        If you tried to avoid the plastic typically encounter in a day,
    you'd hit countless obstacles. There was an article in The New York
    Times earlier this year about people who managed to maintain generally
    plastic-free lifestyles--their days involved using homemade shampoo,
    toothpaste and more. This effort is extraordinarily admirable, but not
    many could manage it.\1\ Millions of consumers should not have to
    restructure their daily routines to avoid plastic when the country's
    leading producers of food, personal care products and other everyday
    staples could start using sustainable alternatives to single-use
    plastic, stopping the problem at the source.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Kurutz, S. (2019). Life Without Plastic Is Possible. It's Just
    Very Hard. The New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/
    02/16/style/plastic-free-living.html. Accessed Oct 23, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Plastic hasn't been around for as long as you might imagine,
    considering the level of plastic pollution we're seeing in the
    environment. It wasn't being used for consumer goods like beverage
    bottles until the 1940s. By the 1950s, we had entered the era of
    ``throwaway living''--meaning our current culture of relying on single-
    use, disposable materials to make our lives more efficient and
    convenient. Plastic was convenient for producers too--it was a cheap,
    durable and lightweight material. This trend's environmental impact was
    evident within just a few years. Disposable items were suddenly
    cluttering roadsides around the country.
        Fast forward to today, and we're seeing plastic floating on the
    surface of the sea, washing up on the world's most remote coastlines,
    melting out of Arctic sea ice and sitting at the deepest point of the
    ocean floor.\2\ There isn't a place on earth untouched by plastic
    pollution. In fact, it's now cemented in our fossil record. For the
    first time, researchers have documented plastic building up
    exponentially in the sediments off the coast of Santa Barbara,
    California, that precisely mirrors the massive expansion in global
    plastic production from 1945 to the present decade.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Lavers JL and Bond JL. (2017). Exceptional and rapid
    accumulation of anthropogenic debris on one of the world's most remote
    and pristine islands. PNAS 114:6052-6055. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1619818114;
    Peeken I, Primpke S, Beyer B, et al. (2018). Arctic sea ice is an
    important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic. Nature
    Communications 9. doi: 10.1038/s41467018-03825-5; Chiba S, Saito H,
    Fletcher R, et al. (2018). Human footprint in the abyss: 30 year
    records of deep-sea plastic debris. Marine Policy 96:204-212. doi:
    10.1016/j.marpol. 2018.03.022.
        \3\ Brandon JA, Jones W, and Ohman MD. (2019). Multidecadal
    increase in plastic particles in coastal ocean sediments. Science
    Advances 5. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0587.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are leaving behind a permanent legacy of plastic pollution for
    future generations.
        The list of marine animals affected by plastic pollution is
    continually growing. Plastic has been consumed by an estimated 90
    percent of seabird species and eaten by every species of sea turtle.\4\
    Some organisms, such as corals, appear even more attracted to plastic
    than food.\5\ What's worse, studies have shown when corals come into
    direct contact with plastic debris, their likelihood of disease
    increases from 4 percent to a staggering 89 percent.\6\ At least 17
    percent of the species observed to be affected by marine debris are
    listed as threatened or near threatened with extinction by the
    International Union for the Conservation of Nature, indicating that
    marine plastic debris may be contributing to the possibility of these
    species' extinction.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Wilcox C, van Sebille E, and Hardesty BD. (2015). Threat of
    plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive and increasing. PNAS
    112:11899-11904. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502108112; Kuhn S, Bravo Rebolledo
    EL, and van Franeker JA. (2015). Deleterious Effects of Litter on
    Marine Life. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Spinger
    International Publishing.
        \5\ Rotjan RD, Sharp KH, Gauthier AE, et al. (2019). Patterns,
    dynamics and consequences of microplastic ingestion by the temperate
    coral, Astrangia poculata. The Royal Society. doi: 10.1098/
    rspb.2019.0726.
        \6\ Lamb JB, Willis BL, Fiorenza EA, et al. (2018). Plastic waste
    associated with disease on coral reefs. Science 26:460-462. doi:
    10.1126/science.aar3320.
        \7\ Gall SC and Thompson RC. (2015). The impact of debris on marine
    life. Marine Pollution Bulletin 92:170-179. doi: 10.1016/
    j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One study estimated that up to 51 trillion microplastic particles
    were present in the ocean in 2014. This number is only expected to
    increase as plastic continues to pour into our oceans and breaks up
    into smaller pieces.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ van Sebille E, Wilcox C, Lebreton L, et al. (2015). A global
    inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environmental Research
    Letters.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to polluting the marine environment, plastic poses a
    risk to human health. We're now seeing plastic in our water, our food,
    our soil, our air and our bodies.\9\ Plastic particles have been found
    in everything from our water and beer to honey, salt and tea.\10\ The
    particles also make their way into the seafood we eat.\11\ Scientists
    are still studying the potential impacts the plastic particles
    themselves are having on our health.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ ---- (2019). Plastic and Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic
    Planet. Center for International Environmental Law. 84p.; Boots B,
    Russell CW, and Green DS. (2019). Effects of microplastic in soil
    ecosystems: above and below ground. Environmental Science & Technology.
    doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b03304; Schwabl P, Koppel S, Konigshofer P, et
    al. (2019). Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a
    prospective case series. Annals of Internal Medicine. doi: 10.7326/M19-
    0618; Dris R, Gasperi J, Mirande C, et al. (2017). A first overview of
    textile fibers, including microplastics, in indoor and outdoor
    environments. Environmental Pollution 221:453-458. doi: 10.1016/
    j.envpol.2016.12.013.
        \10\ Kosuth M, Mason SA, and Wattenberg EV. (2018). Anthropogenic
    contamination of tap water, beer, and sea salt. PLoS ONE 13. doi:
    10.1371.journal.pone.0194970; Hernandez LM, Xu EG, Larsson HCE, et al.
    (2019). Plastic teabags release billions of microparticles and
    nanoplastics into tea. Environmental Science & Technology. doi:
    10.1021/acs.est.9b02540.
        \11\ Li J, Green C, Reynolds A, et al. (2018). Microplastics in
    mussels sampled from coastal waters and supermarkets in the United
    Kingdom. Environmental Pollution 241:35-44. doi: 10.1016/
    j.envpol.2018.05.038; Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, et al. (2015).
    Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from
    textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientific
    Reports 5 doi: 10.1038/srep14340.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Plastic is also affecting our climate. If plastic was a country, it
    would be the planet's fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.\12\
    Studies have shown that plastic contributes to climate change by using
    fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases throughout its life cycle,
    from production and transportation to waste management. Plastic at the
    ocean's surface and on land continually releases methane and other
    greenhouse gases throughout its existence, and these emissions increase
    as plastic breaks apart in sunlight.\13\ With plastic production rates
    anticipated to increase, so will plastic's effects on our climate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Zheng J and Suh S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global
    carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate Change 9:374-378. doi:
    10.1038/s41558-019-90459-z; ---- CO2 Emissions/Global Carbon Atlas.
    Available: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions. Accessed
    Oct 9, 2019.
        \13\ ---- (2019). Plastic and Climate: The Hidden Costs of a
    Plastic Planet. Center for International Environmental Law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Perhaps the single most important thing to remember about plastic
    is that it lasts for centuries.\14\ Most of the plastic you've used in
    your lifetime still exists on the planet in some form or another. This
    is what makes single-use plastics so profoundly flawed. Single-use
    plastics are created from a material made to last forever but are
    designed to be used once and thrown away. Sometimes single-use plastics
    are only used for a few moments before polluting the earth for years to
    come.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ ---- (2018). A Guide to Plastic in the Ocean. NOAA's National
    Ocean Service. Available: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/
    marinedebris/plastics-in-the-ocean.html. Accessed June 6, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Half of all the plastic ever made in our planet's history was
    produced in the past 15 years.\15\ Plastic production is expected to
    quadruple between 2014 and 2050, rising 40 percent in just the next
    decade.\16\ Waste-management options don't have a chance at keeping up.
    Take recycling, for instance. Now that companies are seeing their names
    on the bottles floating in the ocean and polluting our beaches, plastic
    producers frequently tout their commitments to improving recycling
    rates and their investments in waste-management systems. They proclaim
    recycling as the panacea to our plastic problem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Geyer R, Jambeck JR, and Law KL. (2017). Production, use, and
    fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 3. doi:
    10.1126.sciadv.1700782.
        \16\ UNEP and GRID-Arendal. (2016). Marine Litter Vital Graphics.
    Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme and Arendal: GRID-
    Arendal.; ---- (2019). Plastic and Climate: The Hidden Costs of a
    Plastic Planet. Center for International Environmental Law. 108p.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But of all the plastic waste ever generated as of 2015, only 9
    percent has been recycled. That means the vast majority, 91 percent,
    either was sent to a landfill, was incinerated or ended up polluting
    our natural environment--including our oceans.\17\ Simply improving
    recycling rates will not solve this crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Geyer R, Jambeck JR, and Law KL. (2017). Production, use, and
    fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances 3. doi:
    10.1126.sciadv.1700782.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, not everything that goes into the recycling bin actually
    gets recycled. Some is disposed of in landfills or lost in the
    recycling process. Some is turned into lower-value products, known as
    ``downcycling.'' And some is exported to developing nations with less
    robust waste management systems. This means the plastic we thought was
    being recycled often ends up in a landfill or in the ocean on the other
    side of the globe.\18\ The United States is no exception. In 2015,
    plastic recycling rates in the United States were only 9 percent.\19\
    The United States and other developed countries have been adding to the
    problem by shipping some of our plastic waste to countries in Asia
    because it's cheaper than dealing with it at home.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Brooks AL, Wang S, and Jambeck JR. (2018). The Chinese import
    ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Science Advances 4.
    doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
        \19\ ---- (2018). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2015
    Tables and Figures. Environmental Protection Agency.
        \20\ ---- (2019). Global Exports of Plastic Scrap by Country and
    Year (in metric tons). Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
    Available: https://www.isri.org/docs/default-source/commodities/
    international-scrap-trade-database/plastic-ex-comtrade-2019---
    28mar2019.pdf?sfvrsn =6. Accessed Sept 30, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The truth is, recycling can't solve the ever-growing plastic
    crisis. Recycling is like trying to mop up water from an overflowing
    bathtub while the faucet is still running. We need to turn off the
    faucet and reduce the production of single-use plastic. Companies that
    have created this problem need to change the way they do business. They
    must do more than recycle. We need them to significantly reduce the
    amount of single-use plastic they are putting onto the market and offer
    consumers plastic-free choices for their products.
        Unfortunately, those companies aren't doing enough, and that's why
    we need your help. It's up to our national, state and local governments
    to require companies to reduce single-use plastic. Policies governing
    the production and use of single-use plastic are the most effective way
    to stem the flow of it into our oceans, and these policies are becoming
    more common around the world.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ UNEP. (2018). Combating marine plastic litter and
    microplastics: An assessment of the effectiveness of relevant
    international, regional and subregional governance strategies and
    approaches--summary for policy makers. Available: https://
    papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/
    unep_aheg_2018_1_inf_3_summary_policy_makers.pdf. Accessed Jul 31,
    2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The European Union, Peru, Chile and Canada have all announced or
    are implementing policies to reduce plastic pollution. The United
    States should create a national policy that comprehensively addresses
    the plastics crisis threatening our future. U.S. cities, towns,
    counties and states have recognized the urgency of the issue and taken
    the initiative on their own, passing policies to reduce single-use
    plastics. Effective policies include bans, taxes, deposit return
    systems and extended producer responsibility.

        Here are a few examples:

        In 2018, the European Union announced a phaseout of single-use
    plastics by 2021. The Single-Use Plastics Directive bans single-use
    plastic products, including plates, cutlery, polystyrene food and
    beverage containers, and other items that are estimated to represent 85
    percent of single-use plastic found on beaches in the EU.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Directive 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the
    Council of 5 June 2019 On the Reduction of the Impact of Certain
    Plastic Products on the Environment, 2019 O.J. (L 155) 1-19 (EU).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Earlier this year, Santa Monica, California prohibited food and
    beverage sellers from offering disposable food ware, including plates,
    cups, bowls, trays and utensils, made predominantly with plastic. The
    city has already banned expanded polystyrene products.\23\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Santa Monica, Cal., Mun. Code ch. 5.44 (2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2019, Vermont passed a law that includes a ban on single-use
    plastic bags, a ban on expanded polystyrene food service products, a
    minimum 10-cent tax on recyclable paper bags, a ban on single-use
    plastic stirrers, and a policy making straws available by request-only
    in food service establishments.\24\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10 Sec. Sec. 6691-6700 (effective July 1,
    2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the Federal level, this Committee should use its authority to
    tackle the plastic pollution problem. I applaud you for stopping the
    use of plastic water bottles in committee hearings and votes, the rest
    of Congress should take this same step. There's no need to wait. In
    2011, the National Park Service implemented a policy to encourage
    national parks to stop selling water in plastic bottles. Unfortunately,
    the policy has been reversed. The Committee should make our national
    parks, national wildlife refuges, marine sanctuaries and other Federal
    lands and waters into single-use-plastic free zones, stopping the sale
    of single-use plastics including plastic beverage bottles throughout
    the Department of the Interior system.
        Local and state policies move us in the right direction, and
    ultimately comprehensive U.S. Federal action is needed--and soon. I
    urge you, our policy makers tasked with protecting our country's
    natural resources, to pass Federal legislation that stops plastic
    pollution at the source, significantly reduces the production of this
    everlasting pollutant, holds corporations responsible for this global
    crisis and enables states and cities to continue to lead the way on
    solutions. Don't fall for the false promise of recycling and don't
    stoop to incineration, we must stop the runaway increase in plastic
    production and reduce the amount of plastic companies are making and
    foisting on us, because it will last for centuries. We have no more
    time to waste.

                                     ______

       Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Velazquez to Ted Danson
        Question 1. In my district, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
    reported that over 75 percent of the waste discovered in their clean-up
    project was single-use plastics--particularly straws and plastic
    bottles. As you mentioned in your testimony, recycling alone will not
    address the worsening plastic crisis. We need timely action from both
    consumers and producers. Throughout your time working on this front,
    what corporations or industries have been the most unresponsive to
    advocates' request to start using sustainable alternatives to single-
    use plastic?

        Answer. Solving the plastic pollution crisis will require efforts
    from all companies and industries producing unnecessary single-use
    plastic, but some industries have played a larger role in the problem
    than others. The 2018 International Coastal Cleanup found that the most
    commonly collected plastic items included plastic grocery bags, plastic
    straws, plastic stirrers, plastic lids, plastic take-out containers,
    foam take-out containers, plastic beverage bottles and plastic bottle
    caps. Plastic bottles were among the top three most common plastic
    items found in Break Free from Plastic's global cleanup this past
    September.
        The responsibility for curbing the amount of plastic beverage
    bottles and plastic bottle caps ending up in our waterways should fall
    on the companies producing these products, but unfortunately, we're not
    seeing significant progress. If you go to your average supermarket or
    lunch counter wanting a beverage or a salad, you'll often find your
    only choices have a plastic package. Four decades of the industry
    knowing about the plastic pollution problem hasn't changed that.
    Beverage companies continue to tout their recycling commitments as a
    solution to the problem rather than switching to more sustainable
    packaging. Some of these companies even make vague promises to reduce
    their use of virgin plastic that lack quantifiable goals, making it
    impossible for us to hold them accountable.
        Similarly, it is no surprise that plastic bags, straws, stirrers,
    lids and take-out containers are ending up in our oceans when they're
    so readily available at retailers and restaurants. These are single-use
    items that these companies could choose to avoid, but we haven't seen
    enough take the initiative to stop using these items or swap them out
    for less harmful alternatives. Policies like plastic bag, straw and
    polystyrene bans that have passed in cities, counties and states around
    the country are effective in driving widespread change around these
    items.
        Companies have the power to greatly reduce the amount of plastic
    flowing into our oceans by quitting their reliance on plastic packaging
    and giving consumers plastic-free choices. We need to demand that
    change now and implement policies that support it.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Danson.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Parras to testify for 5
    minutes.
        Welcome to the Committee.

     STATEMENT OF JUAN PARRAS, FOUNDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS
    ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVOCACY SERVICES (TEJAS), HOUSTON, TEXAS

        Mr. Parras. I, too, thank you, Chairman Lowenthal and
    Ranking Member McClintock. I am Juan Parras with Texas
    Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS). TEJAS has been
    working on environmental justice issues along the Houston Ship
    Channel for over 16 years. We work at the intersection of human
    rights and social justice issues.
        We call Houston home and share that home with the largest
    petrochemical complex in the Nation, the second-largest in the
    world. It is also the largest city with no zoning, meaning that
    refineries and petrochemical plants, storage tanks, and other
    industries and infrastructures can be built on the fence line
    of communities bordering them.
        Ninety-nine percent of plastic is derived from fossil
    fuels. Of those plastics produced, they are derived from either
    fracked gas or oil. The explosion of natural gas products has
    led to an ever-increasing demand for natural gas liquid, rich
    in the chemicals that serve as the building block of plastic
    production.
        Naphtha is a product of oil refining. It is another key
    element of plastic production. Only five companies account for
    over half of global naphtha sales: British BP, Chevron,
    ExxonMobil, Shell, and China National Petroleum Corporation.
    Four of the five have refining capacities along our coast
    within an hour of our front-door communities.
        We are already exposed to a dangerous mix of toxic
    pollutants, both authorized and unauthorized, released by many
    different industrial sources located along the Houston Ship
    Channel. Over the last several years, that petrochemical
    complex has been expanding. Post-Hurricane Harvey, we began
    tracking the emissions and realized that the expansions seen in
    our communities were related to a rapidly, ever-growing market
    in plastic. Ethane crackers, terminals, and logistics plants
    all centered around one thing, the production of plastics.
        We understood that these expansions were focused on
    ethylene crackers and LNG facilities. However, we now
    understand the major economic pivot oil and gas is undergoing,
    shifting from traditional production into new forms of
    petroleum utilization.
        However, as they expanded, so too did the instability of
    these petrochemical plants, and we have seen an increase of
    chemical disasters in the Houston Ship Channel. In the most
    recent fire, 37 people were injured, some with first-degree
    burns. Workers were initially evacuated, but later required to
    re-enter the plant as the fire was still burning.
        To compound the problems, the Commission's Baytown air
    quality monitors had malfunctioned during the event, and thus
    deprived community members of invaluable air quality data to
    protect their health.
        While those fires blazed, community members were wholly
    unaware of the fire or proper shelter-in-place. ExxonMobil has
    a 10-year investment of $20 billion in their expansion projects
    for the Gulf of Texas.
        Recent disasters: the ExxonMobil fire on March 16, 2019;
    the ITC Fire on March 17, 2019, where over 8 cities were held
    hostage under a chemical plume 47 miles long and 17 miles wide;
    the ExxonMobil Olefins fire on July 31, 2019, where 37 workers
    were injured; and on September 20, 2019, where nine chemical
    barges collided after Tropical Storm Imelda damaged evacuation
    routes.
        A recent report for the Center for International
    Environmental Law found that if trends in the oil consumption
    continue as expected, the consumption of oil by the entire
    plastic sector will account for 20 percent of the total
    consumption by 2050. A recent study uncovered two-thirds of the
    90 plastic-related facilities in the Houston region violated
    air pollution control laws over the last 5 years, and were
    subject to environmental enforcements. But many more exceeded
    their permits and were not penalized.
        State records show these compounding emissions result in
    cumulative impacts on neighboring communities, including an
    increased risk for developing cancer and other health
    conditions. Plastic poses a distinct risk to public health,
    from wellhead to waste. From our dinner table to the depths of
    our oceans, every part of the chain that creates plastic harms
    us.
        Plastic is being produced near vulnerable communities,
    predominantly people of color, poor people, indigenous, and
    immigrant people who have to pay the price in shortening the
    life span of our children and elderlies.
        And I see that I am out of time, but I will submit the
    entire document. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Parras follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Juan Parras, Executive Director, Texas
              Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (t.e.j.a.s.)
        T.e.j.a.s has been working on environmental justice issues along
    the Houston Ship Channel for over 16 years. We work at the intersection
    of human rights and social justice issues. We call Houston home and
    share that home with the largest petrochemical complex in the Nation,
    second-largest in the world. It is also the largest city with no
    zoning. This means you can put parks, homes, and preschools next to
    petrochemical facilities, refineries, storage tanks and other industry
    infrastructure, in fact you can find living examples in our community
    of Manchester and throughout the Gulf Coast. Ninety-nine percent of
    plastic is derived from fossil fuels. Of those plastics produced they
    will derive from either fracked gas or oil. The explosion of natural
    gas production has led to ever increasing demand for natural gas
    liquid, rich in the chemicals that serve as the building blocks of
    plastic production. Naphtha, a product of oil refining is another key
    of production. Only five companies account for over half of global
    naphtha sales: BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and China National
    Petroleum Corporation. Four of five have refining capacity along our
    coast within an hour of our front door.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Center for International Environmental Law, Fueling Plastics:
    Fossils, Plastic & Petrochemical Feedstocks (September, 2019),
    available electronically https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/
    09/Fueling-Plastics-Fossils-Plastics-Petrochemical-Feedstocks.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are already exposed to a dangerous mix of toxic pollutants, both
    authorized and unauthorized, released by many different industrial
    sources located along the Houston Ship Channel. Over the last several
    years that petrochemical complex has been expanding. Post hurricane
    Harvey we began tracking emissions and came to understand that the
    expansions hitting our communities were related to a rapidly, and ever-
    growing, market in plastic. Ethane crackers, terminals, and logistics
    plants all centered around one thing: the production of plastic. We
    understood that these expansions focused on ethylene crackers and LNG
    but now we began to understand the major economic pivot oil and gas is
    undergoing, shifting from traditional production into new forms of
    petroleum utilization. However, as they grew, so too did the
    instability of these petrochemical plants and with it has come an
    increase in chemical disasters.
        In the most recent fire, 37 people were injured, some with first-
    degree burns. Workers were initially evacuated but later required to
    re-enter the plant as the fire was still burning. To compound the
    problem, the Commission's Baytown air quality monitors malfunctioned
    during the event and thus deprived community members of invaluable air
    quality data to protect their health. While those fires blazed
    community members were wholly unaware of the fire or proper shelter-in-
    place procedures. ExxonMobil has a 10-year investment of $20 billion in
    their Grow the Gulf Project.
        Recent Disasters:

         ExxonMobil Fire March 16, 2019.

         The ITC fire, March 17, 2019 over eight cities held
                hostage under a chemical plume 47 miles long, 17 miles
                wide.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.click2houston.com/news/how-it-happened-a-timeline-
    of-the-deer-park-chemical-fire.

         ExxonMobil Olefins Fire, July 31, 2019, 37 workers were
                injured.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/
    article/ExxonMobil-s-Baytown-fire-the-latest-in-a-14270558.php#photo-
    18007536.

         September 20, 2019, nine chemical barges collide after
                Tropical Storm Imelda damaging evacuation routes.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.khou.com/article/traffic/i-10-east-freeway-shut-
    down-after-barges-break-loose-hit-bridge/285-d522e91e-1a54-4b2d-9269-
    fe44d75f6c81.

        In a recent report the Center for International Environmental Law
    found that, ``If trends in oil consumption continue as expected, the
    consumption of oil by the entire plastics sector will account for 20
    percent of the total consumption by 2050.''
        A recent study by uncovered ``two-thirds of the 90 plastics-related
    facilities in the Houston region violated air pollution control laws
    over the last 5 years and were subject to enforcement actions. But many
    more exceeded their permits and were not penalized, state records
    show.'' \5\ These compounding emissions result in cumulative impacts
    for neighboring communities, including an increased risk for developing
    cancer and other health conditions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Environmental Integrity Project, Growth of Houston-Area
    Plastics Industry Threatens Air Quality and Public Safety (September 5,
    2019), available electronically at https://www.
    environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Plastics-
    Pollution-on-the-Rise-report-final.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The production of plastic releases toxics like 1,3, butadiene,
    benzene, ethane, styrene, toluene. In the short term they look like:
    headaches, fatigue, weakness, memory loss, nausea, nose bleeds,
    unconsciousness. In the long term: asthma, anemia, central nervous
    system damage, childhood leukemia and other cancers, kidney and liver
    damage, sterility, and even death.\6\ The effect is even more severe on
    children, seniors and the already sick.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Plastic-and-
    Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-Planet-February-2019.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Plastic poses a distinct risk to public health from wellhead to
    waste. From our dinner table to the depths of our oceans. Every part of
    the chain that creates plastic harms us. Plastic had to be produced
    near vulnerable communities that used fossil fuel that were extracted
    next to PEOPLE--BLACK, BROWN, POOR, INDIGENOUS, IMMIGRANT and so many
    others had to pay the price in shortening the lives of our children's
    health. The devastating extraction from our land that shakes our earth.
    The production of plastic treats us as disposable, as a byproduct that
    can be ignored. OUR LIVES CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE SACRFICED FOR
    CONVENIENCE.
        The American Chemistry Council predicts industry will invest $204
    billion by 2030 on 334 new and expanded facilities in the United States
    alone.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Energy/Shale-Gas/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We know our community is not alone in this struggle. The Gulf Coast
    is known for housing some of the most sophisticated refining capacity
    in the world. This should not come at the detriment of us at the
    fenceline.
        For us on the fenceline, this is not an exercise in paper pushing
    or number crunching: not addressing this issue with the necessary
    enforcement disproportionately harms people of color. There is no
    amount of money that can make up health impacts from additional
    emissions and also fugitive emissions associated with additional units
    or points of emission.
        It is vital that community voices be heard at the decision-making
    table, these are the daily decisions that can drastically alter the
    outcomes for generations to come. Legislation and policies that
    safeguard our already overburdened communities is necessary for our
    survival. You don't have to lose a child, mother or friend to
    understand our fight for life.

                                     *****

    The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Parras'
    testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
    retained in the Committee's official files:

        --  Report, Plastics Pollutions on the Rise: Growth of Houston-Area
                Plastics Industry Threatens Air Quality and Public Safety,
                Environmental Integrity Project, September 5, 2019

        --  Brief on Plastic in the Gulf Coast--Buildout Hazards to Human
                Health and Microplastics

        --  Fueling Plastic Series--Center for International Environmental
                Law

                --  Fueling Plastics: Fossils, Plastics, & Petrochemical
            Feedstocks

                --  Fueling Plastics: How Fracked Gas, Cheap Oil, and
            Unburnable Coal are Driving the Plastics Boom

                --  Fueling Plastics: Plastic Industry Awareness of the
            Ocean Plastics Problem

                --  Fueling Plastics: Untested Assumptions and Unanswered
            Questions in the Plastics Boom

        --  Plastics & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet--
                Center for International Environmental Law

        --  Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet

        --  Videos

                --  The Story of Plastic Teaser

                --  How Plastic Production Pollutes Small Towns

                --  Manchester--Tejas

                                     ______

             Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Juan Parras

    Mr. Parras did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
    deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

                      Question Submitted by Rep. Lowenthal
        Question 1. Mr. Parras, the environmental justice component and how
    frontline communities are affected by the health impacts of plastic
    refining and production facilities are too often overlooked. Can you
    please describe for the Committee the relationship between the plastic
    life cycle and environmental justice?

        1a. The industry is looking to increase production over the next
    decade, if the projections for increasing plastic production come true,
    what will the impacts of new facilities be on communities of color and
    other overburdened communities?

        1b. How can Congress better support EJ communities in their fight
    against the plastic industry?

        1c. Given the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and
    plastic production, how much of an impact would phasing out single-use
    plastics have on curbing greenhouse gas emissions?

                      Question Submitted by Rep. Velazquez
        Question 1. Can you describe the relationship between the plastic
    life cycle and environmental justice? What institutional systems are in
    place that have allowed these impacts to occur?

                         Question Submitted by Rep. Cox
        Question 1. Mr. Parras, while the research is still out on
    microplastics' human health impacts, it sounds like the communities
    that TEJAS works with have some experience with that question.
    Recently, I introduced a bill to help prevent asthma in rural
    communities. Is asthma a potential concern with plastic production and
    incineration?

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Parras.
        The Chair now recognizes Dr. Jambeck to testify for 5
    minutes.
        Welcome to the Committee, Dr. Jambeck.

      STATEMENT OF DR. JENNA JAMBECK, PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL
          ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS, GEORGIA

        Dr. Jambeck. Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member
    McClintock, and the rest of the Subcommittee. I am honored to
    be here to testify at this hearing.
        My name is Jenna Jambeck, I am a professor of Environmental
    Engineering at the University of Georgia and a National
    Geographic Fellow. I have been conducting research on solid
    waste for over 23 years, with related projects on marine debris
    itself for 18, especially projects regarding location and
    spatial analysis, quantification and characterization, and
    global plastic waste management.
        I have also witnessed and sampled plastic in the ocean,
    sailing across the Atlantic in 2014. I have co-developed the
    Mobile Litter Logging App--Marine Debris Tracker, which was
    funded by the NOAA Marine Debris Program in 2011, where over 2
    million items have been logged by people all over the world.
        I have previously testified to the Senate on this issue, to
    the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife.
        I am also a participant in the International Informational
    Speakers Program with the U.S. State Department. This has
    brought me to 13 different countries and economies around the
    world to engage with governments, academics, NGOs, and citizens
    on this issue.
        I have submitted a longer written document, but my
    testimony today is my opinion based upon my background and
    experience conducting research on marine debris plastic and
    waste.
        When I testified previously to Congress in 2016, I spoke to
    educate and raise awareness of this issue based upon my
    research. But we now know we have a major problem with plastic
    ending up in our environment and in the ocean. The science on
    this issue has increased rapidly just in the past 4 years.
        We now know we have produced 8.3 billion metric tons of
    plastic as of 2017. And since about 40 percent of this is used
    for packaging and single-use items, it means that 6.3 billion
    of that had become waste by 2015.
        So, what have we done with that waste? How did we manage
    it?
        We have recycled about 9 percent of that cumulatively,
    those vary locally. But, on average, globally recycled only
    about 9 percent. Another 12 percent had been incinerated. That
    means 79 percent has ended up either in a landfill or in the
    open environment.
        As a result of weathering and exposure to sunlight, plastic
    that is in the environment doesn't biodegrade. It simply
    fragments into smaller and smaller pieces, and with an unknown
    fate, I would say, of the smallest particles that we can't even
    measure yet.
        You heard the number in our Science paper in 2015. We
    estimated the global quantity of plastic entering the oceans at
    8 million metric tons in 2010, and that is equal to about a
    dump truck of plastic entering every minute. So, although there
    have been actions taken globally to stop the business-as-usual
    projection of this input doubling by 2025, plastic production
    use and population growth are all driving factors that have
    resulted in an increase of plastic used and in our waste
    streams.
        We can all agree we want to keep plastic out of the ocean
    in the first place. There is a tremendous opportunity for
    continued bipartisan support and action on this issue. In the
    intervention framework I developed in 2016, we start all the
    way upstream with reducing waste generation, especially in
    places with high per-person waste generation rates, like here
    in the USA. Our waste generation rate is two to six times that
    of many countries around the world, especially still
    economically developing countries. And this reduction can be
    obtained through a combination of individual choice, policies,
    and industry-led changes.
        For when we do need packaging, there needs to be a more
    distinct connection between design, material choice, and end-
    of-life management of materials. Currently, the waste
    management system has to deal with whatever comes their way.
    This is one contributing factor to the historical practice of
    exporting nearly 50 percent of our plastic recycling to other
    countries, primarily those of lower income, which contributes
    to the environmental pollution in their country, as well.
        Engagement of all stakeholders across all points of this
    issue, from production, to use, to management, is critical to
    make sure all voices are heard. So, one reminder I always have
    to give: there are people behind all the numbers I gave you. We
    need to collectively come up with creative, socially and
    culturally appropriate solutions, because we are all here today
    presenting to you. I am optimistic we can do that, and I will
    continue to work hard on science to inform policy. But everyone
    has an important role to play.
        In my last points, I want to encourage you to try two
    experiments.
        First, for the next 24 hours, take note of everything that
    you touch that is plastic. From this you will see how widely
    used and useful the material is, but it also makes you reflect
    upon where and when are the right times and places to use this
    material.
        Second, go outside on a scavenger hunt for litter--you
    won't likely have to go far--and look at each item you find as
    a message for you, the figurative or sometimes literal message
    in a bottle. Ask yourself three questions: one, what is it;
    two, how did it get here; and three, what are we going to do
    about it?
        Community-based data collection and citizen science within
    a framework and structure can contribute to critical data
    needed to inform circular materials management in communities.
    And I believe questions like these can empower citizens, NGOs,
    corporations, and policy makers like you to take the most
    relevant, impactful action for their country, state, or
    community.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Jambeck follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Jenna R. Jambeck, Ph.D., Professor of
       Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of
              Georgia, Athens, Georgia; National Geographic Fellow
                                   key points
        Based upon my testimony, the top five recommendations for how
    Congress can best support research, cleanup, or prevention efforts to
    combat marine debris are:

      1.  Funding the current agencies and initiatives, as well as new
                research through other agencies to provide science to
                further determine human health impacts (e.g., micro and
                nanoplastics) and mitigate this issue through the entire
                value chain of plastic (e.g., fate and transport of plastic
                in the environment, new materials and product design),
                which can provide economic innovation and growth, and also
                inform policy. Community-based data collection and citizen
                science with proper frameworks and structure can contribute
                to critical data needed to inform circular materials
                management in communities on the front lines of waste
                management.

      2.  To support prevention domestically, Congress could support
                legislation to reduce waste generation to reduce leakage of
                especially plastic packaging (and those items found in
                typical beach cleanups), like deposit-return schemes which
                show a 40 percent reduction in beverage containers where in
                place in the USA, as well as, for example, product
                stewardship/extended responsibility initiatives to increase
                the collection and value of waste.

      3.  To support prevention internationally, we can continue to provide
                funding through USAID and other bilateral initiatives,
                which I have seen give NGOs the opportunity to catalyze
                action, improve infrastructure and the economy, in
                countries like Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. We also
                need to make sure our exports are not negatively impacting
                other countries and support development in other countries
                so they may participate in trade using standards such as
                the OECD. We can also determine if our trade-agreements can
                influence other countries improvement of environmental
                standards, including solid waste management.

      4.  Show support for global initiatives to assist with the reduction
                of plastic entering the ocean and improvement of waste
                management infrastructure development around the world
                (e.g., with world development banks, NGOs and industry),
                along with technology and knowledge transfer to other
                countries on solid waste management through, for example,
                the U.S. State Department, U.S. EPA and NOAA. The newest
                USAID CCBO funding is one aspect of this process.

      5.  Derelict fishing gear is one of the most dangerous types of
                debris in the environment. Supporting the development of a
                program (through an agency) for fisherman to drop off gear
                that is broken or that they find could help this program
                (providing collection and disposal in areas where DFG has
                an impact). NOAA Marine Debris Program ``Fishing for
                Energy'' or similar could continue and/or expand.

                                  introduction
        I would like to thank Chairman Huffman, and the rest of the Water,
    Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify at this
    hearing to examine plastic's impact on the ocean. It is an honor and
    privilege to be with you today. My name is Jenna Jambeck and I am a
    Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Georgia and
    a National Geographic Fellow. I have been conducting research on solid
    waste issues for 23 years with related projects on marine debris since
    2001, especially projects regarding location and spatial analysis of
    debris, debris quantification and characterization, global plastic
    waste mismanagement and technology/mobile device usage (mapping, etc.).
    I have also sampled open ocean plastic sailing across the Atlantic and
    co-developed the mobile app, Marine Debris Tracker, funded by the NOAA
    Marine Debris Program. I have presented at three Capitol Hill staffer
    briefings, a Global Ocean Commission meeting, the 2015 Our Ocean
    Conference, a 2015 G7 workshop, and at the White House Office of
    Science Technology and Policy (OSTP). I also serve as the U.S.
    representative on an Advisory Panel for the United Nations Environment
    Program Global Partnership on Marine Litter. I testified on May 17,
    2016 to the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water and Wildlife on
    this topic. I have been in the International Informational Speakers
    Program with the U.S. State Department since 2017 and have been to 13
    different countries/economies working on the issue of marine debris and
    plastic waste in public environmental diplomacy (Chile, Philippines,
    Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Vietnam, Jordan, Israel, South Korea,
    India, Bulgaria, Taiwan, and China). My testimony today is my opinion,
    based upon my background and experience in studying marine debris and
    plastic pollution.
                                    context
        I think it is important to provide context and introduction similar
    to when I gave testimony to the U.S. Senate in 2016, the U.S.
    regulatory history is always relevant. I grew up in the 1970s outside a
    small town (fewer than 3,000 people) in Minnesota. Like many people at
    the time, we managed our trash by taking it to the landfill and putting
    it in ourselves. I always found it fascinating to see what people throw
    away--and I have seen bowling balls to bologna in landfills. In
    graduate school, my fascination turned into a passion for studying
    solid waste management as an environmental engineer. Environmental
    engineers can also design urban drinking water and wastewater
    facilities, but to me, solid waste management felt like it most closely
    involved people. Unlike the small effort required to turn off a faucet
    or flush a toilet (even a sensor can do this with no human effort), we
    all have to decide daily what to consume, what materials to use, what
    is and is not ``solid waste'' in our own home, and then whether to give
    away, discard, compost or recycle unwanted materials. The human
    component of solid waste management, and the direct interaction with
    people, is an aspect of my work that continues to be essential to my
    work.
        In 1976 Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA) that required the U.S. EPA (typically through the states) to
    regulate solid and hazardous waste.\1\ ``Open dumping'' was prohibited
    and replaced by engineered and regulated landfills, composting and
    recovery systems.\2\ RCRA also specifically called for research to
    inform solutions, including demonstrations and special studies on
    measures to reduce the generation of waste, waste collection practices,
    and economic incentives to promote recycling and waste reduction (among
    other things).\3\ Because of RCRA, we had outstanding progress in solid
    waste management, just in my lifetime. When I heard about our trash
    ending up in the ocean in 2001, I knew we must be contributing to it
    from the land, and started down the path of my current research. In
    this testimony, I am going to illustrate the direct connection between
    the solid waste (trash) we produce on land and the plastic found in our
    ocean, recalling that the human component goes hand in hand with local,
    state, regional, national and international initiatives to address this
    problem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)--Public Law 94-
    580, October 21, 1976, (42 U.S.C. 6901-6992; 90 Stat. 2795), as amended
    by P.L. 95-609 (92 Stat. 3081), P.L. 96-463 (94 Stat. 2055), P.L. 96-
    482 (94 Stat. 2334), P.L. 98-616 (98 Stat. 3224), P.L. 99-339 (100
    Stat. 654), P.L. 99-499 (100 Stat. 1696), P.L. 100-556 (102 Stat.
    2779).
        \2\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Parts 239-282.
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/new-law-control-hazardous-wastes-
    end-open-dumping-promote-conservation-resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  introduction
        Marine debris has been recognized as a contamination issue for more
    than 50 years \4\ but the laser-focus on plastic has occurred just in
    the past 5-7 years. Plastic completely changed our world after its
    expanded use in World War II, and global annual plastic production has
    increased from 1.7 million metric tons/yr in 1950 to 360 million metric
    tons/yr (not including polyester fibers) in 2019.\5\ Along with a steep
    increase in production, we have seen a resulting increase in plastic in
    the waste stream from 0.4 percent in 1960 to 12.7 percent in 2012 (by
    mass) in the United States. All traditional plastics do not biodegrade,
    but only fragment into smaller, ultimately microscopic or nanoscopic,
    pieces. A cumulative 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic has been
    produced since 1950.\6\ Since approximately 40 percent of plastic is
    used for packaging and single use items, this means that 6.4 billion
    metric tons has become waste by 2015 (Figure 1). Globally, on average,
    we have recycled only about 9 percent of plastic, with 12 percent
    recycled and 79 percent ending up in our landfills or in the
    environment. With cumulative quantities projected to reach 34 billion
    metric tons of production and 12 billion metric tons of waste, the
    management of plastic in the waste stream is only continuing to grow.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Ryan, P. (2015). A Brief History of Marine Litter Research, in
    Marine Anthropogenic Litter, Bergmann et al. (eds.), Springer, New
    York, NY.
        \5\ Plastics Europe, https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
    files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_
    version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf.
        \6\ Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Lavender Law, K. (2017). Production,
    use, and fate of all plastics ever made, Science Advances, 19 Jul 2017,
    Vol. 3, no. 7.

                   Figure 1. Global Materials Flow of Plastic
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsPolymers that make up the plastics that we commonly encounter
    are listed in Table 1. But plastics also contain additives to alter
    color, texture, shape, form, antimicrobial surfaces, make it flame
    retardant, and for other properties.\7\ The wide variety of available
    additives results in thousands of different plastic material compounds
    for particular purposes, creating a diverse array of plastic materials
    that end up in our trash, which can make recovery and recycling
    challenging. In the USA, the per person waste generation rate ranges
    from 4.48 to 6 lbs/person/day (2 to 2.7 kg/person/day), depending on
    the reference examined.\8\ This is 2-6 times the waste generation rates
    of many countries around the world.\9\ The recycling percentage for all
    plastic in the USA is the same as the global average, with only about 9
    percent of plastic recycled, although rates for individual polymers
    vary (Table 1).\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Additives have been mixed into plastic compounds since they
    have been in the consumer market: Deanin, R.D. (1975). Additives in
    plastics, Environmental Health Perspectives, 11:35-39.
        \8\ https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-
    and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials#Generation;
    https://erefdn.org/national-waste-generation-recovery-and-disposal-
    assessment/.
        \9\ http://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/.
        \10\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/
    smm_2015_tables_and_figures _07252018_fnl_508_0.pdf.

         Table 1. Common Polymers, Uses and Density related to Seawater

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Recycling  Sink or Float                   USA Recycle
        Polymer        Number     in Seawater    Common Use(s)       Rate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polyethylene             1   Sink           Individual       18.4%
     Terephthalate                               beverage
     (PET)                                       bottles,
                                                 textiles
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    High Density             2   Float          Gallon jugs,     10.3%
     Polyethylene                                some personal
     (HDPE)                                      care product
                                                 and detergent
                                                 bottles
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polyvinyl                3   Sink           Piping, siding   Negligible
     Chloride (PVC)                              (construction)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Low Density              4   Float          Retail bags,     6.2%
     Polyethylene                                thin film
                                                 plastic
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polypropylene            5   Float          Bottle caps,     0.9%
                                                 yogurt
                                                 containers,
                                                 toys
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polystyrene              6   Sink           Foamed/expanded  1.3%
                                  (expanded      PS in
                                  floats)        packaging
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Others                   7   Nylon sinks    Fishing nets     22.6%
                                                 (nylon),
                                                 carpet
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Since plastic ``degrades'' through fragmentation, the result is
    microplastic (smaller than 5 mm in size) in the environment. Secondary
    microplastics are formed by the fragmentation of larger items. Primary
    microplastics are manufactured in these small sizes. Some sources of
    primary microplastic are resin pellets and microbeads. Resin pellet
    loss has been addressed by the industry though their Operation
    CleanSweep program,\11\ and recent Federal legislation banned
    microbeads in personal care products as of 2018.\12\ Secondary
    microplastics are found on our coastlines, in our sediments, and
    floating in the ocean aggregating in the five oceanic gyres. Using the
    largest available ocean microplastics dataset, a recent study estimated
    that 15 to 51 trillion particles, with a mass of 93 to 236 thousand
    metric tons, are floating on the sea surface globally; this is
    equivalent to only about 1 percent of the estimated input of plastic
    waste to the ocean from land in a single year.\13\ Where the remaining
    plastic debris is in the ocean remains a major unanswered question. The
    majority of field sampling to date captures only particles larger than
    approximately one-third of a millimeter in size, but increasing numbers
    of reports of synthetic fibers (from clothing and woven ropes, for
    example) in freshwater and marine environments, and even in air, make
    microfibers now a major concern.\14\ And, while many people think of
    marine debris as being only in the ocean environment, the Great Lakes
    are governed by NOAA's Marine Debris Program, and are known to be
    contaminated with plastic (REF) and not to be overlooked are inland
    riverine inputs of which there are two global estimates for, but could
    make up 5 percent to 50 percent (likely around 25 percent) of the
    global inputs of plastic into the ocean.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://opcleansweep.org/.
        \12\ https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ114/PLAW-
    114publ114.pdf.
        \13\ van Sebille, E., Wilcox, C., Lebreton, L., et al. (2015). A
    global inventory of small floating plastic debris, Environmental
    Research Letters, 10 124006.
        \14\ Woodall, L.C., Gwinnett, C., Packer, M., et al. (2015). Using
    a forensic science approach to minimize environmental contamination and
    to identify microfibres in marine sediments. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
    95(1), 40-46; Watts, A.J.R., Urbina, M.A., Corr, S., et al. (2015).
    Ingestion of Plastic Microfibers by the Crab Carcinus maenas and Its
    Effect on Food Consumption and Energy Balance, Environmental Science &
    Technology, 49(24), 14597-14604.
        \15\ Lebreton, L.C.M., et al. River plastic emissions to the
    world's oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 15611 (2017); Schmidt, C., Krauth, T.,
    Wagner, S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2017, 51, 21, 12246-12253; Lechner,
    A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., et al. (2014). The Danube so
    colourful: A potpourri of plastic litter outnumbers fish larvae in
    Europe's second largest river, Environmental Pollution, 188, 177-181.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In the last decade, scientific research into marine debris, and
    especially plastic, has increased. In 2011, a scientific working group
    was convened at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
    Synthesis (NCEAS). I was honored to be a part of this working group
    that spent 3\1/2\ years synthesizing data to describe the scale and
    impact of trash in ocean ecosystems. At least nine scientific articles
    have been produced from this group describing information to date,\16\
    advancing the science. The NCEAS work, along with other recent
    scientific work, has brought attention to the issue of plastic in the
    oceans further validating action at the global scale by the G7, G20,
    United Nations, and multinational global funding entities like the
    World Bank, the Global Environment Fund (GEF). In 2018, the Save Our
    Seas Act was passed with unanimous bipartisan support. And Save Our
    Seas 2.0 is in the legislative process now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ I reference some of them in this document, but the full list
    is available online here: https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/12645#.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similar to RCRA in the 1970s, sound science should be used when
    determining policies and solutions. Today, we have sufficient evidence
    to guide action to reduce inputs of plastic into the ocean. In
    parallel, new scientific information should be created to help us
    better understand the sources, sinks and impacts of plastic in our
    oceans.
                       impacts from plastic marine debris
        I will cover impacts briefly here, with further detail able to be
    obtained in my previous testimony to the Senate.\17\ In 1966, two U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service employees, Karl W. Kenyon and Eugene Kridler,
    were among the first scientists to document plastic and wildlife
    interactions when they discovered plastic was consumed by seabird
    (Albatross) chicks that had died in the Hawaiian Islands National
    Wildlife Refuge.\18\ Since that time, many individuals of a multitude
    of different species of wildlife have been found to be impacted by
    plastic. Like in the Albatross chicks in 1966, ingestion of and
    entanglement are the most commonly reported interactions. A
    comprehensive critical review of the literature on marine debris
    impacts was led by Dr. Chelsea Rochman in the NCEAS group. Of the 296
    perceived threats of debris to wildlife that were tested, 83 percent
    were demonstrated (proven), and 82 percent of those were from plastic.
    There is evidence of impacts to individual animals and to assemblages
    of organisms suggesting decision makers should take action in order to
    avoid risk of ``irreversible harm.'' \19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/0/8074ded1-
    5986-4a9b-b033-2eb69e66993f/B775115948AB5A3C80BDDB5B0287E8B3.jambeck-
    testimony.pdf.
        \18\ Kenyon, K.W., & Kridler, E. (1969). Laysan Albatrosses swallow
    indigestible matter. Auk, 86, 339-343, also referenced in Ryan, P.
    (2015). A Brief History of Marine Litter Research, in Marine
    Anthropogenic Litter, Bergmann et al. (eds.), Springer, New York, NY.
        \19\ Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Underwood. A.J., et al. (2016).
    Ecology, 97(2), 302-312.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Lost fishing equipment (e.g., nets and traps) can ``ghost fish,''
    or drift while continuing to catch fish and kill wildlife. This can
    have an impact on the fishing and shellfish industry. One study in
    Puget Sound alone analyzed 870 recovered ``lost'' gillnets and found
    31,278 invertebrates (76 species), 1,036 fishes (22 species), 514 birds
    (16 species), and 23 mammals (4 species); 56 percent of invertebrates,
    93 percent of fish, and 100 percent of birds and mammals were dead when
    recovered.\20\ When experts were asked which marine debris item poses
    the greatest risk to marine life, fishing-related gear ranked first,
    followed by balloons and plastic bags.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Good, T.P., June, J.A., Etnier, M.A., et al. (2010). Derelict
    fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: Patterns and
    threats to marine fauna, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(1), 39-50.
        \21\ Wilcox, C., Mallos, N., Leonard, G.H., et al. (2016). Using
    expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on
    marine wildlife, Marine Policy, 65 (2016), 107-114.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Marine debris can present physical hazards to shipping, boating,
    fishing and industrial systems by blocking navigation, fouling boat
    propellers, clogging water intakes or blocking pumping systems. Coastal
    tourism is also affected by marine debris and other litter. In the
    1980s, when medical waste was found on some beaches, communities lost
    millions of dollars from a decline in tourism and increased costs for
    beach cleanup maintenance.\22\ A 2014 study by the NOAA Marine Debris
    Program in Orange County, CA found that (1) residents are concerned
    about marine debris, and it significantly influences their decisions to
    go to the beach, (2) No marine debris on the beach and good water
    quality are the two most important beach characteristics to them, and
    (3) Avoiding littered beaches costs Orange County residents millions of
    dollars each year. If the debris were reduced by just 25 percent, it
    would save residents roughly $32 million dollars in reduced travel to
    other beaches.\23\ UNEP estimates the financial damage of plastics to
    marine ecosystems globally is $13 billion each year.\24\ A recent study
    outlined that there are negative impacts to almost all marine ecosystem
    services, negative impacts to human well-being (fisheries, heritage and
    recreation) at a cost of $3,300 to $33,000 per metric ton of marine
    plastic per year, equaling $264 billion per year at the mid-input
    estimate.\25\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ NRC (National Research Council) Committee on Shipborne Wastes,
    Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans, National Academy Press,
    Washington D.C., 1995.
        \23\ Chris Leggett, Nora Scherer, Mark Curry and Ryan Bailey,
    Assessing the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot
    Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County, California, Industrial
    Economics, Inc., for the NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2014.
        \24\ Raynaud, J. (2014). Valuing Plastic: The Business Case for
    Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods
    Industry, UNEP, Plastic Disclosure Project, Trucost.
        \25\ Beaumont, N., Aanesen, M., Austen, M., et al. Global
    ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic, Marine
    Pollution Bulletin, Vol 142, 2019, Pages 189-195.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Plastic also hosts an entire microbial community termed the
    ``plastisphere.'' \26\ Plastic can transport non-native species and
    provide habitat for microbes that might not otherwise thrive, but we
    don't yet know the full extent of this microbiome on ocean microbiology
    or the broader ocean ecosystem. Plastics in the ocean are associated
    with chemicals. This includes organic compounds like flame retardants,
    pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that accumulate on the
    plastic from surrounding water. It also includes the additive
    ingredients of the plastic that can leach into the surrounding
    environment. Thus, plastic can transport these compounds around the
    world and be another potential source of contaminants to wildlife.\27\
    Some of the additives to plastic have come under question for
    toxicity,\28\ but we don't yet know the full impact they have on
    aquatic systems.\29\ Still, there has been evidence of the transfer of
    chemicals from plastic to fish in the lab, causing liver toxicity and
    impacting functions of the endocrine system and to other organisms in
    the field.\30\ Plastic particles and fibers have also been found in the
    stomachs of fish, and in shellfish sold for human consumption.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ A recent summary article that references multiple scientific
    references on this: Samoray, C. (2016). Ocean's plastics offer a
    floating fortress to a mess of microbes, Science News Magazine,
    February 9, 2016; Zettler, E.R., Mincer, T.J., Amaral-Zettler, L.A.
    (2013). Life in the ``Plastisphere'': Microbial Communities on Plastic
    Marine Debris, Environmental Science & Technology, 47(13), 7137-7146.
        \27\ Same as note 6. Plus, a good overview is Rochman, C. (2015).
    The Complex Mixture, Fate, and Toxicity of Chemicals Associated with
    Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment, in Marine Anthropogenic
    Litter, Bergmann et al. (eds.), Springer, New York, NY.
        \28\ For example, Antimicrobial--Yueh, M. and Tukey, R.H. (2016).
    Triclosan: A Widespread Environmental Toxicant with Many Biological
    Effects, Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 56:251-272;
    Flame Retardants--Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
    Toxic Substances Portal--Public Health Statement for Polybrominated
    Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), September 2004 (accessed May 11, 2016) http://
    www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp? id=899&tid=94.
        \29\ Teuten, E.L., Saquing, J.M., Knappe, D.R.U., et al. (2009).
    Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and
    to Wildlife. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences,
    364(1526), 2027-2045.
        \30\ Rochman, C.M., Hoh, E., Kurobe, T., et al. (2013). Ingested
    plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to fish and induces hepatic
    stress, Scientific Reports 3, No. 3263; Rochman, C.M., Kurobe, T.,
    Flores, I., et al. (2014). Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 493,
    656-661; Jang, M., Shim, W.J., Han, G.M., et al. Styrofoam Debris as a
    Source of Hazardous Additives for Marine Organisms, Environmental
    Science & Technology, Article ASAP, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05485.
        \31\ Rochman CM, Tahir A, Williams SL, et al. Anthropogenic debris
    in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and
    bivalves sold for human consumption. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:14340.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               input into the ocean from mismanaged plastic waste
        In the NCEAS group, as we started compiling information about
    sources and inputs of plastic into the ocean, we quickly concluded that
    mismanaged solid waste (trash) made up a large portion of the input.
    Other inputs include, but are not limited to, commercial fishing gear,
    shipping, recreational boating and fishing, and catastrophic events.
    Our first objective was to quantify mismanaged waste from land. To make
    the estimate of plastics entering the ocean from waste management, we
    developed a comprehensive framework (Figure 1).
        Our methods for this estimate were to look at per person waste
    generation rates in 2010 from 192 countries with a coastline in the
    world. Because people's activities nearest the coast are responsible
    for most of the plastic going into the water, we limited our analysis
    to a 50 km strip of the coastline. From there, we looked at what
    percent of that waste is plastic, and what percentage of that is
    mismanaged waste (which means litter or when waste is not captured and
    dumped on the land). From there we had three scenarios of input into
    the ocean: low, mid and high.
        The results were that in 2010, we estimate that 275 million metric
    tons (MMT) of plastic waste was generated in 192 countries. Of that,
    99.5 MMT of this waste was generated within 50 km of the coastline, and
    31.9 MMT was mismanaged. We then estimated that between 4.8 and 12.7
    MMT (a mid-scenario of 8 MMT) reached the oceans \32\ (Figure 2). This
    annual input of plastic is equal to five grocery-size bags filled with
    plastic going into the ocean along every foot of coastline in the
    world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Jambeck, J.R., Andrady, A., Geyer, R., et al. (2015). Plastic
    waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 347, p. 768-771.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Figure 2. Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean in 2010
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsThe United States is one high income country on the list, and
    while our waste management systems are well-designed and very
    effective, and the only mismanaged waste is from litter, we have a
    large coastal population and a large waste generation rate. If we look
    to the future, and assume a business as usual projection with growing
    populations, increasing plastic consumption and increased waste
    generation, but no increase in capture of waste, by 2025, the 8 million
    metric tons doubles--with a cumulative input by 2025 of 155 million
    metric tons.
                         import-export of plastic waste
        While recycling and the circular economy have been touted as
    potential solutions to this issue, one can see from the recycling
    percentages given in the introduction, we have a long way to go for
    recycling to be significant. Approximately half of the plastic waste
    intended for recycling has been exported to hundreds of countries
    around the world (Figure 3).

            Figure 3. Trade of Plastic Waste in Mass and Trade Value

                               (UN Comtrade Data)
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsBefore their import restrictions (resulting really in a ban) in
    2017, China had imported a cumulative 45 percent of plastic waste since
    1992.\33\ Compiled commodity trade data by Amy Brooks in my research
    group illustrated that higher-income countries in the Organization for
    Economic Cooperation (OECD) have been exporting plastic waste (70
    percent in 2016) to lower-income countries in the East Asia and Pacific
    for decades. An estimated 111 million metric tons of plastic waste is
    displaced with the new Chinese policy by 2030 begging the question of
    where this plastic goes now and will continue to go--and causing one of
    the biggest economic disruptions to recycling ever to happen in the
    USA. With 89 percent of historical exports consist of polymer groups
    often used in single-use plastic food packaging (polyethylene,
    polypropylene, and polyethylene terephthalate), bold global ideas and
    actions for reducing quantities of nonrecyclable materials, redesigning
    products, and funding domestic plastic waste management are needed. The
    USA and others who have exported to countries that lack waste
    management systems are responsible for some of this mismanagement. In
    China alone, this added another 11 percent of plastic mass to their
    waste stream to manage in 2015. Rethinking trade agreements and the
    balance of resources to be able to participate in trade for countries
    (like small island sates) that need to, is important. This is also a
    large global economic system that involves the livelihood of millions
    of people around the world. Improving their conditions and protecting
    the environment should be paramount. New amendments to the Basel
    Convention have put requirements on exporting countries to at least
    notify and get consent for shipments.\34\ The USA could help lead
    efforts to both improve and develop domestic infrastructure while
    participating in responsible global trade of recycled materials.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Brooks, A., Wang, S. Jambeck, J. (2018). The Chinese import
    ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade, Science Advances, 20
    Jun 2018: Vol. 4, no. 6, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
        \34\ http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwastes/Overview/
    tabid/6068/Default.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              it's a global issue
        Once plastic is in our oceans, it becomes a global issue and poses
    great logistical and economic challenges to get it out. In addition,
    the plastic is not always visible (although we find it everywhere we
    look, we have only quantified a fraction in our ocean compared with
    what is going in), so understanding potential risk to our ecosystems
    requires two things: (1) understanding the impact and (2) understanding
    the exposure. Our recent estimate of plastic entering the oceans
    informs the second part--exposure, just how much plastic is going into
    the ocean? But it also makes us ask--where is all the plastic going?
    While we know action will help ``turn off the faucet'' of plastic input
    (see potential interventions, below), there are still gaps in the
    sources, distribution, fate and impacts of plastics in the ocean that
    need more research if we want to continue to move forward in addressing
    this issue based upon science.\35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ A good recent review of why it is important to move forward
    with science-based solutions is provided in Rochman, C. (2016).
    Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris should be diverse and
    guided by science, Environmental Research Letters, 11 014006.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    interventions and mitigation strategies
        I developed the framework below for my 2016 testimony \36\ and
    would like to submit it again with some ideas, further explanation and
    answers to some of the questions posed by the Senators in this hearing.
    This framework provides intervention points (1 through 5) and then a
    list of potential (but not all encompassing) interventions that may
    occur at the various points. In general, this represents a hierarchy of
    interventions. However, the most ``bang for your buck'' interventions
    will depend on the needs of the specific geography addressing the
    issue, however, in many cases, all geographies have points along the
    entire framework that will help reduce debris and plastic going into
    the ocean. Some interventions can be immediate and some will take more
    time. The framework starts on the left with the most ``upstream''
    interventions and ends with a last chance to capture the material
    before it enters the ocean. In many cases the interventions offer the
    opportunity for economic innovation and growth. The USA could be a
    leader in several of these categories of interventions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8/0/8074ded1-
    5986-4a9b-b033-2eb69e66993f/B775115948AB5A3C80BDDB5B0287E8B3.jambeck-
    testimony.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Figure 4. Intervention and Mitigation Strategies along some Points in
                            the Plastic Value Chain
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        I'll now discuss some potential intervention points identified
    in Figure 2 in a bit more detail.
    1.0  Reducing plastic production
        Plastic production is one of the ``book ends'' of the plastic value
    chain. Other than a few of the past 65 years, global plastic production
    has increased annually, and is anticipated to continue to do so into
    the near future. Although it comes from fossil fuels for the most part,
    and is produced from monomers that come from the processing of oil and
    natural gas, these monomers (e.g., ethylene and propylene) are used to
    make many different compounds, not just polymers. As long as other
    common chemicals are made, it is likely that polymers will continue to
    be made as well. And, as economies around the world continue to
    develop, packaged goods become more prevalent. Unless the industry
    changes its own course, this stage is mostly influenced if levers in
    other stages are pushed (e.g., demand is decreased for other reasons
    along the value chain). Reduction in demand comes primarily from the
    points given below.

      1.  Consumers demanding less packaging or no packaging (some markets)

              a.   Not everyone has access to clean water, for example, so
            can't always make the choice of a reusable bottle, but these
            choices taken collectively where possible do make a difference

      2.  Local initiatives (e.g., bans, taxes)

              a.   These are often very local-specific, but are also
            becoming more common

              b.   Mass of items removed may be relatively small, but
            numbers of items are also important--there is more than one way
            to measure debris (e.g., mass, count, etc.)

      3.  Voluntary industry actions

              a.   Industry has become more engaged on this issue--I wonder
            if they will volunteer some changes to help in the future as
            well?

              b.   The reality is that all signs point to further growth in
            waste generation, as well as plastic use, especially where
            economic development is occurring or predicted to occur in the
            future

    2.0  Innovative Materials and Product Design
        New materials development and product design take time to advance,
    so these activities need to be happening now--and they are, but even
    more time and resource investment is needed. Overall, I think Green
    Engineering principles,\37\ if followed during material development and
    product design, would help to avoid many of the externalities of
    plastic that we are dealing with currently. In addition, circular
    economy concepts, emerging all over the world now, will be important to
    also apply to plastic materials. Both of these guiding principles
    promote non-toxic materials, ultimately with the capability of
    biodegrading and/or being recycled. Materials and products made with
    more homogenous compounds would make recycling more efficient and
    effective. Materials and products can be designed to retain their
    value, for collection, recovery and recycling. Several of these
    concepts are outlined in Ellen MacArthur Foundation's report on the
    ``The New Plastic Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics,'' which
    focuses specifically on packaging.\38\ The University of Georgia has
    combed environmental engineering and polymer chemistry in a successful
    and rapidly expanding New Materials Institute with centers on
    biodegradable polymers and circular materials management to develop and
    test materials to reduce the flow of plastic into the ocean. NMI has
    become part of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry--University
    Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) that has over 30 corporate
    partners interested in more sustainable and biodegradable polymer
    products. These industry-research groups participate in pre-competitive
    research and development as new materials need to scale to be
    economical for all to use. There is no doubt that developing
    alternative materials without the unintended consequences of
    traditional plastics will spark innovation and economic growth in the
    USA where truly biodegradable polymer production facilities (e.g.,
    Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA)), like the ones in Georgia owned by Danimer
    Scientific and RWDC are creating jobs. There are many current corporate
    commitments to change materials, use more recycled materials, and be
    more circular with materials--many of these commitments have been made
    at the Our Ocean meeting that just occurred for the sixth time in Oslo
    October 23-24. $652 million was committed by governments, corporations
    and NGOs to reduce ocean pollution, including plastics. Commitments to
    move to redesign were made by Unilever and PepsiCo, for example, moving
    to reduction in virgin plastic use and increases in recycled
    content.\39\ Specific points are given for redesign and material
    substitution below:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/greenchemistry/what-is-
    green-chemistry/principles/12-principles-of-green-engineering.html.
        \38\ https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-
    plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics.
        \39\ https://ourocean2019.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191025-
    Commitments-1616.pdf.

      1.  Sustainable packaging associations (pre-competitive
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                collaborations)

              a.   E.g., UGA's New Materials Institute IUCRC, Sustainable
            packaging coalition, Green-Blue: These pre-competitive
            environments could help develop alternatives, standardize
            packaging and help packaging retain value so that it is easier
            to recycle and less leakage will occur if it has value.

      2.  Truly biodegradable alternatives (e.g., PHA)

              a.   PHA is expanding in the market in the USA and is
            creating economic value (new facility opening in Kentucky--
            several open in Georgia already). While it may biodegrade if
            littered in the environment, it should still be managed in the
            solid waste system, and be thoughtful about where used (in
            currently non-recyclable items, for example). But it has the
            possibility of being home-composted as well. The USA is
            currently a leader in the development of this material.

              b.   An important distinction should be made with polylactic
            acid (PLA), a popular corn-based polymer is bio-based and
            industrial compostable (avoids using fossil fuels as
            feedstock), but it will not biodegrade in home composting or in
            the ocean. It will not biodegrade if littered on land. It has
            to reach a high temperature (reached in industrial composting)
            to be able to biodegrade.

      3.  Packaging with more value (e.g., single, homogenous materials,
                design for recycling/end-of-life)

              a.   This can be helped by collaborations between industry,
            brands and waste managers/experts

      4.  Design out problematic items/materials (e.g., caps/lids)

              a.   Similar to how aluminum can ``pop-top'' opening was
            changed to a tab that stayed on (so the pull tabs did not get
            littered), we can innovate design for items that leak into the
            environment (if data is collected--see intervention point 5,
            last chance capture).

    3.0  Reduce Waste Generation
        In places like the United States, where we already have high per
    person waste generation rates, we can examine methods of waste
    reduction. For example, some of us have the luxury of being able to
    make choices about single use items we use daily. The majority of us
    have access to clean drinking water infrastructure so we can use a
    reusable water bottle, reusable coffee mug, bring a reusable bag to the
    grocery store, and say ``no'' to straws (or get reusable ones). These
    seem like small and mundane things, but what our research on plastic
    input showed is that since population density is such a big driver of
    these inputs, just one small choice, taken collectively, can make a big
    difference. There is a bit of a ``chicken and egg'' scenario here
    though, consumers can make choices, but they also need availability and
    access to those choices. For example, it might be hard to not buy
    bottled water if you don't have access to a drinking fountain or water
    filling station. But this is also where policies regarding specific
    items of concern can provide motivation. Waste reduction can also occur
    from participation in new collaborative and sharing economies. These
    new paradigms are emerging and technology and social media are helping
    to move them forward. People are choosing to own less and ``share''
    more. It started with car and bike shares, but has expanded to tools,
    and even clothing. As people become more aware of the issue of plastic
    in our environment, they are demanding companies reduce waste
    themselves, and help provide the right choices and infrastructure for
    people to reduce their own waste generation. Specific points on waste
    reduction below--and asking the question, can we decouple waste
    generation from economic growth? I get very excited to see what my
    students and young innovators will create in this category daily.

      1.  Using reusable items (e.g., bottles, mugs, bags, etc.) and if
                this is challenging for citizens, I ask them to think about
                why and what change is needed so it is possible at the
                government or corporate level? Then advocate for that
                change.

      2.  Sharing, Collaborative Economy concepts

              a.   Bike shares, car shares, tool shares, clothing rental,
            etc. these all reduce the need to purchase and create waste
            (facilitated by technology), but still meet people's needs and
            can still create revenue for the companies providing the
            services.

              b.   How can these concepts be related to packaging? (see
            2.b)

      3.  Decouple waste generation with economic growth (facilitated by
                technology)

              a.   Reuse programs (using mobile phones, which many people
            have globally, especially where rapid economic growth is
            occurring)

              b.   RFID, mobile phones, smart-labels, etc. (e.g., RFID
            water refill stations exist for both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo
            products, but are not yet widely distributed yet)

    4.0  Improve Waste Management Globally
        Improving waste management globally could go a long way to keeping
    a large mass of plastic out of the ocean (realizing mass is not the
    only meaningful metric for plastic--volume, count, shape, or impact to
    wildlife are other metrics). For example, in our Science paper the top
    20 countries' mismanaged plastic waste encompassed 83 percent of the
    total input in 2010. But with a combined strategy, in which total waste
    management is achieved in the 10 top-ranked countries and plastic waste
    generation is capped, a 77 percent reduction could be realized by 2025.
    That sounds simple. We know how to design waste management systems, but
    in light of the context I gave at the beginning, waste management is
    much more than just a design challenge, it also has deep social and
    cultural dimensions. So we need to work together at a combination of
    local and global initiatives, and we need global participation from
    various stakeholders along the entire value chain of plastic (see
    following section on Circularity Assessment Protocol). Per person waste
    generation is coupled with economic development and, in many cases, the
    waste stream has fairly quickly changed characteristics to include more
    plastic. There are still many people in both the United States and
    globally that are unaware of the consequences of plastic in our aquatic
    environment.
        Globally, innovation and creativity is needed in this space and
    people are heeding the call. Large, global NGOs are partnering with
    local groups in areas of concern to try to implement culturally
    appropriate mitigation strategies. Infrastructure is being integrated
    into existing informal waste management sectors in the hopes of
    continuing and improving people's livelihoods. U.S.-based groups can
    help in efforts for this global problem by connecting with groups who
    are trying to address these issues in their own countries, and there is
    a lot of work to be done. Some concepts that can be drivers in this
    area: zero waste (reduce disposal or destruction of waste to as close
    to zero as possible) and product stewardship/extended producer
    responsibility (waste management responsibility is shared or is the
    entire responsibility of product manufacturers). Plastic reuse and
    recycling can grow if the right economic structure is in place to
    motivate the collection of plastic waste and its reprocessing. Many
    local groups in global communities need some added support to elevate
    and expand what they are already doing to bring it to scale. Policies
    like deposit-return schemes reduce the quantity of plastic that reaches
    the environment. In U.S. states that have these schemes, a 40 percent
    reduction of beverage containers is observed.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B.D., Lawson, T.J., et al. Economic
    incentives reduce plastic inputs to the ocean, Marine Policy, Volume
    96, 2018, Pages 250-255.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Solid waste collection can be a hyper-local activity and can look
    different in each country, city and even neighborhood. Plastic has made
    it a more complicated and created a rapid change in the waste stream
    that we were ill prepared for. It creates a waste stream that is more
    varied and dynamic than we have ever experienced before. It has proved
    to be quite a challenge for waste operators and municipalities to
    manage. I have developed a ``Five C'' approach for this intervention
    point.

      1.  Collect: May be traditional, on-demand, or decentralized waste
                collection

              a.  Collection innovation is needed--revers logistics may
            play a role

      2.  Capture: Material Recovery Facilities, waste depots, waste banks,
                community centers (e.g., ``punto limpio'' in Chile)

      3.  Contain: Recycling or engineered disposal

      4.  Context and 5. Culture--these can ``make or break'' the success
                of a potential intervention. The local community and
                stakeholders absolutely need to be engaged and involved
                from the start through the end of any project and not just
                led through it, but their local and indigenous knowledge is
                critical

    5.0  Litter Capture
        Litter capture and collection is the last point to keep materials
    from entering the ocean. It is reserved for mostly the litter that
    occurs from inadvertent littering, lack of awareness and behavior
    issues. After outreach and education to prevent litter in the first
    place, there are street sweeping, municipal litter clean-up programs
    and stormwater catchment systems, all which will only be conducted in
    their respective jurisdictions. An innovative example of a final
    catchment device is the Baltimore Water Wheel.\41\ Operated off of
    mechanical and solar energy in Baltimore Harbor, ``Mr. Trash Wheel''
    has booms that skim the surface of the harbor and direct the floating
    trash to the conveyer system that removes it from the water and places
    it into a dumpster to be managed properly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ http://baltimorewaterfront.com/healthy-harbor/water-wheel/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Non-governmental organization and volunteer cleanups to remove
    litter have been occurring for years. These events certainly help to
    keep litter from entering the ocean, and they are also a source of
    data. The Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup is now in
    its 33rd year and it not only helped to remove 0ver 10,500 metric tons
    of debris from beaches in 2018, but it has spread awareness and
    education as well. For the first time in 2017 and also in 2018, the top
    10 items found on beaches for the ICC were all plastic. In 2011, my
    colleague Dr. Kyle Johnsen and I co-developed a mobile app called
    Marine Debris Tracker at the University of Georgia funded by the NOAA
    Marine Debris Program. The Marine Debris Tracker mobile app and citizen
    science program allow for the collection of global standardized data at
    a scale, speed, and efficiency that wasn't previously possible.\42\ It
    also spreads awareness and education about this issue wherever it is
    used. Individuals all over the world have helped to clean up or
    document over 2 million items--by simply hitting a few buttons on their
    mobile phone to tell us what they found. User metrics provide a ranking
    and our largest group user is the Georgia Sea Turtle Center protecting
    and caring for Sea Turtles on Jekyll Island, GA and one of our largest
    individual users is in Omaha, NE (not far from the Missouri River)
    where he has collected over 87,000 pieces of litter alone, over the
    past 7.5 years. We, along with our app users, have fostered an online
    community through social networks--everyone is supportive of each
    other's efforts and individuals know that they are a part of a large
    global effort. There is now enough (opportunistic) data in the database
    to start to examine characteristics and trends based upon the spatial
    and temporal data provided by our extremely dedicated users. Data is
    critical to informing upstream solutions and can really empower
    communities and decision makers to be able to take actions driven by
    data. Last-chance cleanup points are summarized below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Jambeck, J.R., Johnsen, K. (2015). Marine Debris Tracker:
    Citizen-based Litter and Marine Debris Data Collection and Mapping,
    Computing in Science and Engineering, 17(4), 20-26; http://
    www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu/.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1.  Engineered, mechanical systems

              a.  Mr. Trash Wheel or other engineered devices

      2.  Manual (by hand)

              a.  Cleanups (e.g., ICC by Ocean Conservancy)

              b.   Use of ocean-bound plastic can catalyze the development
            of infrastructure since the material now has value--often a
            much higher value than it did previously (e.g., Parley, Dell,
            NextWave plastics)

      3.  Data to feed back to Interventions 1 through 4 in the Framework

              a.   E.g., Marine Debris Tracker developed by UGA (or other
            apps) to collect data

              b.   Could make upstream choices/changes based upon what is
            leaking into the environment

                 community-based data collection and assessment
        Communities are the at the frontlines of this issue. They are where
    solid waste is managed and many decisions and development of waste
    management systems are made. They also experience the direct impacts of
    plastic pollution in their local environment. It is important we work
    with communities in the decision-making process to be able to come
    together on realistic and viable solutions. After I began traveling for
    the U.S. State Department for the International Informational Speakers
    Program in 2017 (that has now brought me to 13 countries), I often find
    myself in the same situation over and over again. Speaking with
    governments and communities about this issue, they would say to me,
    ``Well now that we know more about this issue, what can we do?'' and I
    would pause (since I had not often been there very long typically), and
    tell them that they have the local and indigenous knowledge for
    solutions to this issue--they know their own context and culture. But I
    could also look around and take note of what I saw to contribute data
    for them to use . . . from what stores and cafes were selling in
    packing, from waste and recycle bins I saw, to litter on the ground. I
    also thought more about the concept of the circular economy--being
    touted as a solution to this issue, what does it really mean at the
    community level? How does a community move closer, or even see where
    they are at, related to the circular economy? In addition the community
    systems are an inherently complex, sociotechnical system, which is
    difficult to define with traditional metrics. There was a need for a
    methodology and a framework that provides a baseline understanding,
    illustrates the impacts of changes in the system, and facilitates
    useful knowledge exchange between cities, while allowing for flexible
    adaptation to local knowledge and expertise.
        This is the context for how our Circularity Assessment Protocol
    (CAP) was developed in our Center for Circular Materials Management
    (the only center of its kind in the USA), in our New Materials
    Institute at the University of Georgia. Conducted in collaboration with
    a community and eventually by the community itself, the CAP
    characterizes seven community components: (1) inputs, (2) consumers,
    (3) product design, (4) use, (5) collection, (6) end-of-cycle
    management (e.g., waste management), and (7) plastic leakage into the
    environment. Various influencing factors drive this system including
    governance, economics, policy and legislation (e.g., bans, taxes,
    extended producer responsibility). Furthermore, multiple stakeholders
    exist at every level of the CAP influencing the complex system and
    these include citizens, government, industry, NGOs and academia. While
    the hub and spoke model illustrates the CAP (Figure 5), it is a complex
    system with components inherently interconnected to each other and to
    life-cycle impacts beyond each component.

        Figure 5. The Hub and Spoke Model of the Circularity Assessment
                                 Protocol (CAP)
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        While the CAP is a framework approach to addressing marine
    litter originating from land-based sources, it can also include data
    collection for marine or water-based sources through parallel research
    questions, and the quantity of leakage from this sector can be
    characterized during litter assessments (e.g., if fishing gear is an
    issue, it is typically evident on litter surveys on land as well). The
    framework supports points of intervention and actions, including
    guidance on effective impact (in terms of environmental and economic)
    to improve circularity. The CAP can help to inform a community by
    giving them a baseline assessment to work from and direct potential
    actions to take to improve the areas that most need it, and to answer
    specific questions they have about their own community. The CAP can
    inform and support the government to define policies and good practices
    related to solid waste management and infrastructure, including
    facilitating an understanding of solid waste and plastic management
    through a social lens. This can provide an understanding of people's
    actions (both local and transient) which will inform policy and
    interventions.
        The CAP is being used for projects funded by the World Bank,
    National Geographic, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
    through the Ocean Conservancy, and USAID. Projects are completed or
    active in the Seychelles, Philippines (metro Manila), Chile, India,
    Bangladesh and at least two places in the USA, one small island
    community and a large metropolitan coastal city. A scaled-down version
    of CAP is being conducted in 30 small island and coastal community
    stopovers around the world with eXXpedition, and further development of
    the CAP for communities to conduct the process themselves within the
    framework is underway.
       the united states can be a global leader in addressing this issue
        Once plastic enters the ocean, it quickly becomes a global problem.
    The United Nations Environment Program has been addressing this issue
    through the Global Partnership for Marine Litter, with resolutions
    anticipated out of a meeting later this month. There is also the
    discussion of a global agreement with the potential for flexibility of
    countries to be able to reach reduction goals as they see fit. But the
    United States should be a leader in addressing this global issue, and
    it has in some ways. The U.S. Department of State has worked on this
    issue through the G7, G20 and Our Oceans conference. The NOAA Marine
    Debris Program started in 2006 with the Marine Debris Reduction Act
    (reauthorized in the Save Our Seas Act) and is one of the few agencies
    to provide grant assistance to community groups and research. The U.S.
    EPA has a Trash Free Waters Program that has expanded recently in
    bringing in partners and pilot sites around the U.S. NOAA and the U.S.
    EPA (chair and vice chair, respectively) lead the Interagency Marine
    Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC), a multi-agency body responsible
    for streamlining the Federal Government's efforts to address marine
    debris. Representatives meet to coordinate a comprehensive program of
    marine debris activities and make recommendations for research
    priorities, monitoring techniques, educational programs, and regulatory
    action. The IMDCC participants are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
    U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
    Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of Justice,
    Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Department of State,
    Office of Marine Conservation, and the Marine Mammal Commission.
    Another group that has worked on U.S.-based marine debris issues is the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. While U.S. scientists,
    universities, and research groups are at the forefront of the science
    of marine debris, there have only been a few research grants funded
    through the National Science Foundation and NOAA. Even while a
    multitude of domestic agencies and research groups have been working on
    this issue, resources are limited for addressing this issue and meeting
    our goals in being global leaders. Multi-agency cooperative programs
    could further advance the science of plastic contamination and
    pollution while also providing future economic benefits through start-
    up companies and whole new industries. Community-based and citizen
    science programs to collect badly needed data, like our CAP using the
    Marine Debris Tracker mobile app can be used in the USA, as well as
    around the world.
                                    summary
        Based upon my testimony, the top five recommendations for how
    Congress can best support research, cleanup, or prevention efforts to
    combat marine debris are:

      1.  Funding the current agencies and initiatives, as well as new
                research through other agencies to provide science to
                further determine human health impacts (e.g., micro and
                nanoplastics) and mitigate this issue through the entire
                value chain of plastic (e.g., fate and transport of plastic
                in the environment, new materials and product design),
                which can provide economic innovation and growth, and also
                inform policy. Community-based data collection and citizen
                science with proper frameworks and structure can contribute
                to critical data needed to inform circular materials
                management in communities on the front lines of waste
                management.

      2.  To support prevention domestically, Congress could support
                legislation to reduce waste generation to reduce leakage of
                especially plastic packaging (and those items found in
                typical beach cleanups), like deposit-return schemes which
                show a 40 percent reduction in beverage containers where in
                place in the USA, as well as, for example, product
                stewardship/extended responsibility initiatives to increase
                the collection and value of waste.

      3.  To support prevention internationally, we can continue to provide
                funding through USAID and other bilateral initiatives,
                which I have seen give NGOs the opportunity to catalyze
                action, improve infrastructure and the economy, in
                countries like Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. We also
                need to make sure our exports are not negatively impacting
                other countries and support development in other countries
                so they may participate in trade using standards such as
                the OECD. We can also determine if our trade-agreements can
                influence other countries improvement of environmental
                standards, including solid waste management.

      4.  Show support for global initiatives to assist with the reduction
                of plastic entering the ocean and improvement of waste
                management infrastructure development around the world
                (e.g., with world development banks, NGOs and industry),
                along with technology and knowledge transfer to other
                countries on solid waste management through, for example,
                the U.S. State Department, U.S. EPA and NOAA. The newest
                USAID CCBO funding is one aspect of this process.

      5.  Derelict fishing gear is one of the most dangerous types of
                debris in the environment. Supporting the development of a
                program (through an agency) for fisherman to drop off gear
                that is broken or that they find could help this program
                (providing collection and disposal in areas where DFG has
                an impact). NOAA Marine Debris Program ``Fishing for
                Energy'' or similar could continue and/or expand.

        As environmental engineers, we manage all solid waste that comes
    our way. But by connecting our activities on land with what ends up in
    our oceans, and through that awareness, realizing that we should be
    thinking about end-of-life in materials development and product design
    stages, we can shift the paradigm of ``waste'' to materials management.
    Also, the worldwide interest on this topic has put the spotlight on
    global solid waste management infrastructure needs, and so we need to
    collectively come up with creative, socially and culturally appropriate
    mitigation strategies. Collectively, we hold the key to this problem.
    By changing the way we think about waste, reducing at source, designing
    products for their end-of-life management, valuing secondary materials,
    collecting, capturing and containing our waste, we can open up new jobs
    and opportunities for economic innovation, and in addition, improve the
    living conditions and health for millions of people around the world
    while protecting our oceans.
    Previous questions from Congress:
    1. What are some of the most promising innovations?
        In my opinion some of the most interesting and promising
    innovations are the ones that decouple waste generation from economic
    growth. How can we meet people's needs and increase livelihood without
    creating more waste to manage? Sharing and collaborative economy
    concepts, RFID cups, using technology to connect people and facilitate
    sharing and reuse programs all lead to potential interventions. Reduce
    waste generation in the first place.
    2. What is role of PLA and other bio-based plastics?
        I think there is a role for material and product innovation and
    bio-based and biodegradable (truly) polymers will be a part of the
    solution. However, these materials are being produced at relatively low
    quantities right now, so they are not going to be a big market share
    for some time. And thought needs to go into what they replace as well
    as life-cycle trade-offs. And an understanding of situational
    biodegradability is critical.
    3. Fisherman incentives
        I think incentives for fisherman to collect or bring back gear
    would be a way to get some of the most deadly gear out of the ocean and
    marine environment. I think also supplying a place for fisherman to put
    used gear is important (e.g., dumpster or recycle bin at the port).
    Tracking and transparency of nets--and really all plastic (as much as
    feasible) could help keep the material out of the ocean because we
    would have a better inventory of it.
    4. What are some of the root causes?
        Responsibility--while not particularly popular in the USA, product
    stewardship is an important concept to discuss here. From an
    engineering standpoint, when a company wants to build a development/
    civil engineering project, there often is a partnership with the
    community. One example, I live near an above ground storage tank farm,
    and trucks come and go from it regularly. There were likely road
    improvements needed to be able to build the tank farm and the company
    who constructed it may have contributed to that infrastructure since
    they were building at this site. In some ways, this can be analogous to
    selling products in a country or location that does not have
    infrastructure to manage the waste created from those products. I don't
    think companies knew the issues this would bring. And I think they want
    to help based upon new awareness, but we are certainly playing ``catch-
    up'' with the issue now. Besides policies in other countries, some
    companies are doing this individually, but many still don't know how to
    help with infrastructure. I think that facilitating this in some way
    could be significant--maybe it will all be individual public-private
    partnerships, but some thought could go into how to facilitate
    companies engaging in shared responsibility. Ultimately it will take
    shared actions by industry, municipalities, and citizens to make
    significant positive change on this issue.
        As often said, there is no one solution to this issue, but an
    integrated approach is needed to reduce and eliminate plastic entering
    and impacting our ocean.

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Jenna R. Jambeck, Ph.D. Professor
      of Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of
                                    Georgia
                     Questions Submitted by Rep. Lowenthal
        Question 1. Why is it important to work with local communities to
    identify their sources of plastic pollution and possible solutions?

        Answer. It is important to work with local communities because
    plastic inputs and waste are created and managed at the community
    level, i.e., our communities are on the front lines. So understanding
    their needs, context and situation is important. Even if a Federal
    policy is enacted, the communities will be impacted. Disposal and
    recycling are commonly different from community to community. Community
    engagement, including co-creation, or at least buy-in, on potential
    solutions is critical to implementation and participation. While local
    solutions can scale to make them larger and more impactful, exploring
    what communities need can inform Federal legislation.
        As referenced in my written testimony, one example is the
    Circularity Assessment Protocol (CAP), developed in the Center for
    Circular Materials Management (the only center of its kind in the USA),
    in the New Materials Institute at the University of Georgia. Conducted
    in collaboration with a community and eventually by the community
    itself, the CAP characterizes seven community components: (1) inputs,
    (2) consumers, (3) product design, (4) use, (5) collection, (6) end-of-
    cycle management (e.g., waste management), and (7) plastic leakage into
    the environment. Various influencing factors drive this system
    including governance, economics, policy and legislation. Furthermore,
    multiple stakeholders exist at every level of the CAP influencing the
    complex system and these include citizens, government, industry, NGOs
    and academia. While a simple hub and spoke model illustrates the CAP,
    and data collection is rapid and easy to collect through a
    collaborative effort by the community members and researchers, it is a
    complex system with components inherently interconnected to each other.
        One of the largest benefits to CAP is that it can help to inform
    and empower a community by giving them a starting assessment to work
    from and direct potential actions to take to improve the areas that
    most need it, and to answer specific questions they have about their
    own community. The CAP can inform and support the government to define
    policies and good practices related to solid waste management and
    infrastructure, including facilitating an understanding of solid waste
    and plastic management through both and technical and social lens. This
    can provide an understanding of people's actions (both local and
    transient) which will inform policy and interventions.
        Other community-based work that I have participated in is the
    National Geographic Sea to Source Expedition along the Ganges River in
    India. This expedition focuses on plastic pollution in three key areas:
    land, water and people. On land, we collect data about the input and
    use of plastic in communities, how waste is collected and managed, and
    characterize the movement and type of plastic in the environment. The
    water team studies plastic pollution in the air, water, sediment and
    species in and around the river. The socioeconomic team surveys local
    communities along the expedition route to better understand awareness
    and perceptions of plastic pollution, household plastic waste
    management and local solutions for addressing this issue. During the
    expeditions, we engage the local community, and work with stakeholders
    to empower then to find context-sensitive solutions that can help drive
    a long-term positive change. This kind of interdisciplinary and
    community-based work, incorporating easy-to-follow citizen science
    methods and cutting-edge technology can be a spark for continued change
    on this issue. Similar kind of work could be conducted in major river
    waterways in the USA as well. Previous data on the USA is only an
    estimated model based upon reported solid waste infrastructure. And, as
    one of the largest waste generators in the world, we really don't know
    (except for a few exceptions where collection takes place, like Mr.
    Trash Wheel \1\) what plastic leaks into and from our waterways in our
    own backyard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.mrtrashwheel.com/.

        Question 2. There was a lot of discussion on the societal relevance
    of plastic as it is. What innovations and alternatives are available or
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    coming very soon?

        Answer. I think the USA was sold short by the hearing discussion
    that there was no alternatives and no other material to use besides
    traditional plastic. E.g., we have solved the ``what to do without
    plastic to hold toothpaste problem'' and there are solid toothpaste
    ``chews'' in several different brands available packaged without
    plastic, including one very successful women-owned and operated U.S.-
    based company called Bite.\2\ The USA in many ways is, and can continue
    to expand, in leading the world on innovative materials and
    alternatives to traditional plastic. Already polylactic acid (PLA)
    exists and a large amount of R&D has been conducted in the USA on it.
    While it does not avoid all unintended consequences of traditional
    plastic, it does avoid using fossil fuels as a feedstock and serves as
    an example to the economic growth and development of a new material
    that serves the needs of traditional plastics but is different from it
    in some ways. As stated in the testimony though, an important
    distinction should be made with PLA, as it will not biodegrade in home
    composting or in the ocean. It will not biodegrade if littered on land.
    It has to reach a high temperature (reached in industrial composting)
    to be able to biodegrade.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://bitetoothpastebits.com/.

        Also included in my testimony is an entire section on Innovation
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    summarized here:

        Overall, I think Green Engineering principles,\3\ if followed
    during material development and product design, would help to avoid
    many of the externalities of plastic that we are dealing with
    currently. In addition, circular economy concepts, emerging all over
    the world now, will be important to also apply to plastic materials.
    Both of these guiding principles promote non-toxic materials,
    ultimately with the capability of biodegrading and/or being recycled.
    Materials and products made with more homogenous compounds would make
    recycling more efficient and effective. Materials and products can be
    designed to retain their value, for collection, recovery and recycling.
    The University of Georgia has combined environmental engineering and
    polymer chemistry in a successful and rapidly expanding New Materials
    Institute with centers on biodegradable polymers and circular materials
    management to develop and test materials to reduce the flow of plastic
    into the ocean. NMI has become part of a National Science Foundation
    (NSF) Industry--University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) that
    has over 30 corporate partners interested in more sustainable and
    biodegradable polymer products. These industry-research groups
    participate in pre-competitive research and development as new
    materials need to scale to be economical for all to use. There is no
    doubt that developing alternative materials without the unintended
    consequences of traditional plastics will spark innovation and economic
    growth in the USA where truly biodegradable polymer production
    facilities (e.g., Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA)), like the ones in
    Georgia owned by Danimer Scientific and RWDC are creating jobs (see
    more in the answer below to Question 3). Specific points for redesign
    and material substitution are:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http: / / www.acs.org / content / acs / en / greenchemistry /
    what-is-green-chemistry / principles / 12-principles-of-green-
    engineering.html.

      A.  Sustainable packaging associations (pre-competitive
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                collaborations)

              a.   E.g., UGA's New Materials Institute IUCRC, Sustainable
            packaging coalition, Green-Blue: These pre-competitive
            environments could help develop alternatives, standardize
            packaging and help packaging retain value so that it is easier
            to recycle and less leakage will occur if it has value.

      B.  Truly biodegradable alternatives (e.g., PHA)

              a.   PHA is expanding in the market in the USA and is
            creating economic value (new facility opening in Kentucky--
            several open in Georgia already). While it may biodegrade if
            littered in the environment, it should still be managed in the
            solid waste system and be thoughtful about where used (in
            currently non-recyclable items, for example). But it has the
            possibility of being home-composted as well. The USA is
            currently a leader in the development of this material.

              b.   Danimer Scientific in collaboration with Frito-Lay is
            working on PHA packaging as well, so a major brand is making
            this shift too, scaling this to more USA-based economic growth.

      C.  Packaging with more value (e.g., single, homogenous materials,
                design for recycling/end-of-life)

              a.   This can be helped by collaborations between industry,
            brands and waste managers/experts

      D.  Design out problematic items/materials (e.g., caps/lids)

              a.   Similar to how aluminum can ``pop-top'' opening was
            changed to a tab that stayed on (so the pull tabs did not get
            littered), we can innovate design for items that leak into the
            environment (if data is collected at last chance capture).

        Question 3. Is there a positive economic impact from the
    development of alternatives to traditional plastic?

        Answer. Yes, while there is an economic component to traditional
    plastics to the economy and jobs, the alternatives can create similar
    output and work opportunities (see some in the answer to Question 2,
    above). And the USA can be at the forefront of this change.
        One specific example is a company called RWDC that works closely
    with the New Materials Institute at the University of Georgia. RWDC has
    just purchased a property in Athens, GA for their first production
    facility. They have already hired approximately 40 people and will
    bring 100 jobs to Athens-Clarke County, Georgia (one of Georgia's 91
    persistently poor counties) in the next year, and an estimated 210 jobs
    after 5 years. There is another site in Monroe, GA, where another 86
    jobs will be created within the next 2 years. And this is just one
    company growing as quickly as it can in the USA.

        Question 4. What are some of the benefits and trade-offs from
    switching away from traditional plastics?

        Answer. There is no doubt that plastic has changed our society and
    culture. It has brought us many things we rely on every day--this was
    the point of my 24-hour experiment. But, do we really need it for all
    those things? Some things yes, medicine, electronics, many what we call
    ``durable goods''--but the single-use plastic, the packaging, and what
    ends up in the environment (the second and other critical part to the
    experiment I presented!)--how much of that needs to be plastic? We are
    not going to get rid of all plastic, but I think we need to be more
    thoughtful about where, when, and how we use it.
        Here are some examples of trade-offs that we might consider while
    thinking about plastic. Certainly plastic has brought light-weight
    benefits to food packaging, transport and allows food to be stored in
    sanitary ways, protecting the embodied energy that went into that food.
    Many times the carbon footprint of that food is large. Something to
    ponder, where do we draw the lines in these analyses? Why does our food
    have such a high carbon footprint/embodied energy? Should all food be
    distributed through the current model if it requires plastic packaging?
    I encourage people to think ``out of the packaging container'' and
    outline all the ways we can change the delivery of products and design
    of packaging. But, the best thing, environmentally speaking, is to not
    produce any waste in the first place, so that lends itself to reusable
    items. However, for when packaging is needed, what then, should it be
    made out of? Life-cycle assessments (LCA) were referred to in the
    hearing and I have conducted LCAs on various waste management scenarios
    myself.\4\ More upstream, product LCAs can inform packaging choices, so
    we can compare carbon footprint, energy use, water consumption, etc. of
    two products, for example a plastic v. a reusable bag. While the energy
    input or carbon footprint for production, for example, may be more for
    the reusable bag, the fact that you do not have to manage waste after
    its end-of-life is an energy and carbon off-set. While the plastic bag
    is light, it will have to be transported to a recycling or disposal
    facility and then managed there. In a carbon balance scenario, plastic
    does not release carbon at end of life, because as far as we know it
    does not practically degrade, so while it is not a benefit that it
    remains forever in a landfill, it does not release carbon while there.
    In addition, plastic bags have been known to jam up recycling systems
    at material recovery facilities (MRFs) and blow from landfills, making
    containment a challenge (and requiring human effort and machines to
    manage at landfills). These two situations do not fit into an LCA in a
    straight-forward way. And a last major limitation of this kind of LCA
    is that there is no way to include a littered plastic bag ending up in
    the ocean and a turtle eating it and dying. Animals killed from plastic
    litter does not fit into any LCA. So there are trade-offs that are a
    challenge to compare, and we need a better way to look at the systems
    holistically, even beyond our typical LCA. At a minimum, we need to be
    able to acknowledge, and talk through some of these trade-offs, in a
    systematic way.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Jambeck, J., Weitz, K., Townsend, T., Solo-Gabriele, H. (2007).
    CCA-treated Wood Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-Offs With
    Waste-to-Energy and MSW Landfill Disposal in the U.S., Waste
    Management, Volume 27, Issue 8, 2007, Pages S21-S28. http://
    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X07000773; Thorneloe,
    S., Weitz, K., Jambeck, J. (2007). Application of the U.S. Decision
    Support Tool for Materials and Waste Management, Waste Management, 27
    (2007) 1006-1020. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
    S0956053X0700058X.

                      Question Submitted by Rep. Velazquez
        Question 1. In your testimony you highlight corporate commitments
    made at the Our Ocean meeting in Oslo, can you describe what steps
    exactly are in motion to help reduce plastic pollution in the
    environment? Is it enough?

        Answer. The Our Ocean Commitments are available here: https://
    ourocean2019.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191025-Commitments-
    1616.pdf. For the first time that I can recall a company, Unilever,
    committed to an absolute reduction of plastic use. They are finding
    alternative ways of delivering products, as PepsiCo announced
    purchasing Soda Stream an alternative delivery mechanism for carbonated
    beverages as well. Other companies and governments made commitments too
    (and my mentioning those two companies by no means is an endorsement in
    any way). But no, these commitments are still not enough for a couple
    reasons. First, the corporations have the capacity to go further with
    these commitments and make them more impactful, but the commitments
    continue to get stronger each year, so they do indicate movement in the
    right direction. Another reason it is not enough is that I think
    multiple entities need to be involved to create a larger positive
    impact. No one ``group'' (e.g., industry, government, NGO) can do this
    alone. For example, corporations designing and using packaging need to
    speak with the waste management companies and these two systems, the
    input and the management, should be better integrated. I still see a
    lot of issues related to design and management that could be addressed
    by these two end-of-the-spectrum entities working together. For example
    if product stewardship or extended producer responsibility is
    considered, the impacts to the waste management companies--and their
    input--needs to be considered and heard. For all groups working on, and
    involved in, this issue--if each group makes some compromises, the
    shift each entity needs to make can be smaller in order to meet in the
    middle, yet still creating a truly impactful way forward. I recommend a
    U.S.-based summit where the relevant stakeholders can gather together
    to actively negotiate how new Federal policies could be endorsed in
    order to better protect the environment for all.

                        Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
        Question 1. A recent study found 16 microplastic fibers in a single
    half-liter sample of water taken from the Capitol Visitor's Center. How
    did the microplastics get into the Capitol Visitor's Center drinking
    water or anybody's drinking water for that matter?

        Answer. I would have to see this study's methods to be able to
    comment on this specific result, but microfibers and microplastics have
    been found in freshwater, tap drinking water, groundwater and
    wastewater in published studies.\5\ This same research was a review of
    these published studies, and they found that methods are still widely
    conducted and not standardized, and in order to really find out the
    risk to human health from exposure, these methods need to be
    standardized to high levels. So to properly answer your question, there
    needs to be more research conducted based upon common research methods
    and standards. This would be a good role for the U.S. EPA to play in
    the USA, to direct the methods and standards for comparative purposes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Albert A. Koelmans, Nur Hazimah Mohamed Nor, Enya Hermsen, et
    al. Microplastics in freshwaters and drinking water: Critical review
    and assessment of data quality, Water Research, Volume 155, 2019, Pages
    410-422.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At this point without more data, we can only guess at the sources
    of the fibers and particles. We know fibers are generated from washing
    clothes and unless otherwise captured,\6\ these go out with our
    wastewater to either septic or treatment plants (when treated). In
    cases where not treated, they would be directly discharged to the
    environment. Although we know that typically over 90 percent of the
    fibers can be removed from the wastewater treatment facility,\7\ it
    means they end up in the sludge that settles out and then is either
    managed at a landfill or in some cases, applied to the land where run-
    off could reintroduce them to the environment again. We also know that
    fibers are transported by air, so atmospheric deposition (mostly
    regional, near-range likely) could be a transport into our
    freshwaters.\8\ So, it can end up in our source water from point source
    (wastewater), run-off and from the air. And, although drinking water is
    treated and many particles are removed, it is possible that some could
    remain. There has not been an investigation into the drinking water
    distribution system and its contribution, if any, to microplastic in
    water, but it is doubtful for microfibers as far as I am aware. If
    water is stored in an open glass in a room, microfibers will very
    likely fall into it--they are in the air all around us. Identifying
    them as a polymer with FTIR or Raman, for example, is very important so
    that we correctly identify if they are plastic or not.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Hayley K. McIlwraith, Jack Lin, Lisa M. Erdle, et al. Capturing
    microfibers--marketed technologies reduce microfiber emissions from
    washing machines, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 139, 2019, Pages
    40-45.
        \7\ JingSun, Xiaohu Dai, Qilin Wang, Mark C.M. van Loosdrecht, et
    al. Microplastics in wastewater treatment plants: Detection, occurrence
    and removal, Volume 152, 1 April 2019, Pages 21-37.
        \8\  Steve Allen, Deonie Allen, Vernon R. Phoenix, et al.
    Atmospheric transport and deposition of microplastics in a remote
    mountain catchment, Nature Geoscience volume 12, pages 339-344 (2019).

        Question 2. What do we know about the human health impacts of
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ingesting microplastics?

        Answer. We really don't know at this point--there are likely
    studies underway on this topic, but the potential impacts are not easy
    to study and if some of the plastics are at the nanoscale level, they
    are not able to be analyzed or identified at this point with current
    analytical capability. We know we are exposed through beverages we
    consume (including water) and some of the food we eat (e.g., salt), but
    we don't yet know the impact to humans. I also recommend referring to
    Dr. Chelsea Rochman's recent testimony to the House on this issue.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https: / / docs.house.gov / meetings / AP / AP06 / 20190919 /
    109934 / HHRG-116-AP06-WState-RochmanC-20190919.pdf.

        Question 3. Oftentimes we turn to alternatives to address
    environmental challenges like plastic pollution. In the case of climate
    change, we might use renewable power instead of coal. In the
    transportation sector, we see people switching to electric vehicles.
    However, there are always bumps in the road when we make these
    transitions, and it's our job here in Congress to smooth those out.
    Take the idea of adopting alternatives to plastic as an example.
    Explain to the Committee why we have not seen a more rapid transition
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    to biodegradable plastics or plastic alternatives.

        Answer. I think the biggest reason here is cost. Traditional
    plastics are so inexpensive. There are alternatives developed and
    companies are working hard to scale them (see my answer to Rep.
    Lowenthal's Question 2, above). But the cost makes it challenging until
    they are able to scale. The development and manufacturing of
    alternative materials will have economic growth and provide job
    opportunities in the USA (also see my answers in Rep. Lowenthal's
    Question 3, above), so like your other examples for climate change, we
    can see transitions to different businesses and job growth, while
    making some of these changes. Policies that level the playing field for
    other materials and products would be helpful.

        Question 4. What are some of the actions that Congress could take
    to allow for increased adoption of more recyclable and environmentally
    friendly alternatives to plastic?

        Answer. As mentioned above, policies to level the playing field in
    the cost of materials for use can help here. These could include a tax
    or fee on certain kids of traditional resins, bans, and required design
    and procurement standards. Again, I think that these kinds of actions
    should take into account the impact on all relevant stakeholders to be
    able to move forward with a balance in terms of compromise. In some
    cases, end-of-life policies have an upstream impact, e.g., depending on
    how a product stewardship policy is written, it can impact design of
    products and materials chosen as well. The example from Norway that I
    often talk about it is the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law
    in Norway influenced upstream design and recyclability of products. By
    requiring a certain percent of PET to be recycled, a company formed to
    help make this happen and in order to reach the needed recycling rates
    in the most efficient way, the design of PET bottles were changed so
    that they could be recycled bottle-to-bottle by Infinitum.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://infinitum.no/english/about-us.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Jambeck.
        The Chair now recognizes Tony Radoszewski to testify.
        Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Radoszewski.

      STATEMENT OF TONY RADOSZEWSKI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PLASTICS
                  INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Radoszewski. Good afternoon, Chairman Lowenthal,
    Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee.
    Thank you for having me here today. My name is Tony
    Radoszewski, and I am the President and CEO of the Plastics
    Industry Association. We call ourselves PLASTICS for short, and
    we use that term proudly.
        Plastics were first developed by John Wesley Hyatt in the
    19th century as a synthetic replacement for billiard balls.
    Yes, that is right, billiard balls. Ivory was expensive, and
    the process of collecting it was gruesome and inhumane. So,
    Hyatt tinkered around in his lab and developed the material
    that could behave like ivory, but at a fraction of the cost,
    and at a fraction of the environmental impact. That has been
    the story of plastics from their genesis to today. It is a
    material that meets or exceeds the performance of other
    materials, and does so at a fraction of the cost, and with
    lower environmental impact.
        Since they were first developed, plastics have grown to
    make hospitals safer, surgeries less invasive, patient care
    more sterile, safer, effective, and affordable. In a century-
    and-a-half since they were invented, plastics have also made
    cars, trucks, and planes more efficient, more affordable, more
    environmentally friendly, and, ultimately, safer.
        Plastic pipe brings fresh water to people and takes
    wastewater away for treatment in the most economical and
    environmentally sustainable way. Plastics have also made food
    last longer, improving health and safety to millions across the
    world.
        The plastics industry employs 993,000 people in the United
    States. The state with the largest number of plastics employees
    is California, where 79,700 men and women are directly employed
    by our industry. I can say with confidence that none of them
    got into this business in order to pollute our oceans and
    waterways. I can also say with confidence that many of them
    entered the industry with a passion to improve the safety and
    quality of a lot of people.
        That our products end up where they shouldn't upsets me.
    And I am sure every one of those nearly 1 million people who
    work in this industry feel the same way. But it is a fact. It
    is also a fact that a staggering 8 million tons of plastic ends
    up in the world's oceans each year, 90 percent of which
    originates from 10 rivers in Southeast Asia and Africa. The
    remaining 10 percent comes from elsewhere around the world.
    That is a great deal of value being wasted when these products
    end up in lakes, rivers, and, ultimately, oceans.
        Our industry agrees with everyone in this room that there
    is a plastic waste problem. The urgency of the situation cries
    out for a solution more thoughtful than simply saying ``no'' to
    a material that lowers greenhouse gas emissions, is more
    efficient to produce than other materials like metal, paper,
    and glass, and has delivered numerous benefits to society as a
    whole.
        Study after study, including one conducted recently by the
    California Water Board, has shown that banning of plastic
    products simply drives consumers to other less sustainable
    materials. Bans have a very minor impact on litter, if they
    have any impact at all.
        Plastics are used in such a diverse array of applications
    because they are the best option when all considerations are
    evaluated. In a free market society, consumers decide which
    products provide the best value and performance. In so many
    applications the chief characteristics of plastics--that is,
    their lower weight, durability, flexibility, and versatility--
    constantly make them superior to other competing materials.
        Plastic bags became popular due to concerns about how many
    trees were being cut down to make paper bags. Plastic bottles
    are lighter and don't break as easily as glass ones, reducing
    product loss and shipping costs. When they are disposed of
    properly, these plastic products have a smaller environmental
    footprint than identical products made of other materials.
        Rather than trying to deny the value of plastics, we need
    to head in the opposite direction, and aim to preserve and
    enhance their value so that they are worth too much to waste.
    This can happen by investing in recycling and waste management
    infrastructure.
        We continue to support legislation that would provide
    grants to the Environmental Protection Agency, to state and
    local entities to improve recycling infrastructure, which is
    what we need to close the loop on these issues.
        We have also supported the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which
    aims to improve efforts to combat marine debris, and is
    currently seeing action in various Senate committees, with
    companion legislation having been introduced here in the House.
        The industry itself has stepped up to this challenge by
    innovating, like it always has, developing new chemistries,
    investing in new recycling and collection technologies,
    developing ways to convert plastic waste into energy, and
    creating the supply to meet the demand for recycled plastic
    content. Still, we need the support of Federal, state, and
    local authorities to ensure that no American has to wonder if
    the bottle they toss into the blue bin will end up being
    recycled, or if it will end up as landfill fodder.
        Perhaps I should sum up our industry's position with a
    recent quote from Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe: ``We
    shouldn't treat plastic as an enemy, nor ostracize those who
    use it. What is needed is appropriate management of trash, and
    to search for solutions through innovation.''
        On a personal note, I love this industry. I have worked for
    it for nearly 40 years. I sincerely believe that plastics are
    among humankind's greatest innovations, and that they have
    delivered an enormous benefit to public health and commerce all
    over the world. We need to learn how to live with these
    materials, because I can assure you we would never want to have
    to live without them.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radoszewski follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Tony Radoszewski, President and CEO, Plastics
                              Industry Association
        Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member and members of the
    Subcommittee. Thank you for having me here to speak today.
        My name is Tony Radoszewski and I am the president and CEO of the
    Plastics Industry Association. We call ourselves PLASTICS for short,
    and we use that term proudly.
        Founded in 1937, we're the only association that supports the
    entire plastics supply chain, and we have a track record of fostering
    collaboration between each segment of the industry.
        We believe in working to make our members and the industry more
    globally competitive. We believe in advancing sustainability and being
    a good steward of resources. We believe in promoting plastics
    manufacturing as a viable career option.
        We provide education to the industry and to the public about
    plastics. We support technology-driven innovation to solve problems. We
    work to change the public's perceptions about plastics and show how
    they impact our lives for the better. We understand what's important to
    our members' business and we advocate on their behalf to enact
    sustainable policies and create sustainable business growth for the
    industry.
        Our councils, committees and events such as our signature global
    tradeshow NPE, bring the boldest and brightest innovators, influencers
    and new technologies together to create connections, expand business
    growth and showcase our industry.
        We're dedicated to helping our members shape the future and make a
    positive impact every day.
        Plastics themselves were first developed by John Wesley Hyatt in
    the 19th century as a synthetic replacement for ivory in billiard
    balls.
        Ivory was expensive and the process of collecting it was gruesome
    and inhumane. So, Hyatt tinkered around in his lab and developed a
    material that could behave like ivory but at a fraction of the cost and
    a fraction of the environmental impact.
        That's the been the story of plastics from their genesis to today;
    it's a material that does what other materials can't and does so at a
    fraction of the cost and a fraction of the environmental impact of
    other materials.
        Since they were first developed, plastics have grown to make
    hospitals safer, surgeries less invasive, patient care more sterile and
    effective and affordable--they do things in the medical realm that
    could scarcely have been dreamt of by the original innovators and
    creators of this material: stents, prostheses, bandages, replacement
    hips, shoulder sockets, knees, antimicrobial surfaces, dissolvable
    sutures, syringes, pill bottles, contact lenses and on and on and on.
        In the century and a half since they were invented, plastics have
    also made cars, trucks and planes more efficient, more affordable, more
    environmentally friendly and safer.
        In the United States and around the world, plastic pipe brings
    fresh water to people and takes wastewater away for treatment in the
    most economical and environmentally sustainable way. In developing
    countries, this one aspect has significantly improved the health and
    viability of millions of people.
        And a similar story takes place in food packaging. Plastics make
    food last longer and enabled it to travel farther to help feed those
    most desperately in need of assistance. Again, peoples' quality of
    life, especially in developing countries, is dramatically improved due
    to the use of plastics.
        Why would anyone want to ban such a material?
        The plastics industry employs 993,000 people in the United States.
    The state with the largest number of plastics employees is California,
    where 79,700 men and women are directly employed by our industry. I can
    say with confidence that none of them got into this business in order
    to pollute our oceans and waterways.
        That our products end up where they shouldn't upsets me and every
    one of those nearly 1 million people who not only rely on this industry
    to make a living, but innovate with passion.
        But it is a fact. It is a fact that a staggering 8 million tons of
    plastics ends up in the world's oceans each year--90 percent of which
    originates from 10 rivers in southeast Asia and Africa. The remaining
    10 percent comes from elsewhere around the world. There's a great deal
    of value being flushed down the drain when these products end up in
    lakes, rivers and ultimately oceans.
        Our industry agrees that there is a plastic waste problem. But the
    urgency of the situation cries out for a solution more thoughtful than
    simply saying no to a material that lowers greenhouse gas emissions, is
    more efficient to produce than other materials like metal, paper and
    glass, and has delivered numerous benefits to society as a whole.
        Study after study--including one conducted recently by the
    California water board--has shown that banning a plastic product simply
    drives consumers to other less sustainable materials. Bans have a very
    minor impact on litter, if they have any impact at all.

        Take plastic bags, for instance.

        Plastic bags make up extremely small percentages of the waste and
    litter streams, which is why banning them doesn't have much of an
    impact. According to the EPA, they make up 0.3 percent of municipal
    solid waste and they typically make up less than 1 percent of litter
    (branded plastic retail bags made up 0.8 percent of litter in New
    Jersey, for example).
        Alternatives to plastic bags are also often worse for the
    environment. Paper, woven polypropylene, and cotton/canvas bags all
    have a higher carbon footprint than traditional plastic bags. The UK,
    Denmark, and Quebec governments all did studies on this and came to a
    similar conclusion--plastic bags are the best environmental option at
    the checkout counter.
        California's plastic bag ban led to an increase in carbon emissions
    due to increased paper bag usage as well as skyrocketing trash bag
    sales, which use more plastic (see NPR article and the study). Overall,
    if you ban plastic bags, you will see fewer of them around. But
    consumers will switch to options that have a much higher carbon
    footprint, and litter and waste won't be meaningfully changed for the
    better.
        This is true for bags but also for product bans in general. As an
    example, McDonalds in the United Kingdom and Ireland banned plastic
    straws and replaced them with paper ones. The company recently was
    forced to admit that the new paper straws weren't recyclable. Many
    consumers also don't like paper straws either. As mentioned before,
    banning a product drives consumers to use other less sustainable and
    less functional options while having a negative economic impact on the
    industry and its workers.

        Plastics and plastic products exist for a reason.

        They're used in such a diverse array of applications because they
    are the best option when all considerations are evaluated. In a free
    market society like we enjoy here in the United States, the marketplace
    is driven by consumer demand, which determines which products provide
    the best value and performance. In so many applications, the chief
    characteristics of plastics--that is, their lower weight, durability,
    flexibility and versatility--constantly make them superior to other
    competing materials.
        Even products that we encounter here in the United States in our
    day-to-day lives solve problems. Plastic bags became popular due to
    concerns about how many trees we were cutting down to make paper bags.
    Plastic bottles are lighter and don't break as easily as glass ones,
    reducing product loss and shipping costs. When they're disposed of
    properly, these plastic products have a smaller environmental footprint
    than identical products made of other materials.
        Rather than trying to deny the value of plastics, we need to head
    in the opposite direction and aim to preserve and enhance their value
    so that they're worth too much to waste. This can happen by investing
    in recycling and waste management infrastructure.
        We continue to support legislation that would provide grants
    through the Environmental Protection Agency to state and local entities
    to improve recycling infrastructure--which is what we need to close the
    loop on these issues.
        This could be as simple as an education program on recycling in a
    particular community to the provision of new optical sorting equipment
    within existing Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Simply put, we
    need to improve the collection of materials as one way of keeping it
    from becoming waste in a landfill, or litter in the ocean or along the
    side of the road. We believe having a reliable, steady supply of
    recovered material will encourage companies to use more recycled
    content.
        Making it easier for consumers to recycle is a major factor in
    keeping our products out of the water and other environments where they
    do not belong. We would certainly support efforts to raise awareness on
    the impact of littering and better waste management practices. But this
    should not be the only tool deployed to address this challenge. The
    industry supports voluntary, industry-led or public-private initiatives
    designed to increase the recovery of plastic materials that meet the
    standards of Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) analysis. Such
    initiatives could include programs aimed at increasing the use of post-
    consumer recycled material or bioplastics, as long as the industry has
    been involved in the creation of such initiatives, and they can be
    supported by economic analysis, adequate supply and transition time and
    remain consistent with other regulatory requirements pertaining to the
    manufacture and use of the product, such as food packaging safety
    rules.
        Additionally, any potential language that imposes a fee on
    containers or packaging should apply to all materials--not just
    plastic--as all materials are found in the waste stream.
        PLASTICS advocates for the use of SMM as a guiding policy
    principle--one that considers the entire ecosystem of the product and
    prioritizes the use of materials and processes that consider total
    energy and resource inputs throughout the entire life cycle of a
    product and minimizes associated waste. SMM's holistic approach
    achieves this goal by using metrics like greenhouse gas emissions,
    water usage and transportation efficiencies for different materials,
    and comparing their advantages while meeting economic, social and
    environmental requirements. With that in mind we would caution against
    any product ban that does not consider the implications of what would
    replace that product. In many cases, what is broadly considered a
    ``single-use'' plastic product is the more environmentally sound choice
    when considering the manufacturing process, shipping and recyclability
    over the life of the product. Shortsighted bans would only create more
    problems without proper, detailed analysis.
        We've also supported the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act which aims to
    improve efforts to combat marine debris and is currently seeing action
    in various Senate committees with companion legislation having been
    introduced here in the House.
        Save Our Seas 2.0 is an important, bipartisan step forward to
    address the critical issue of marine waste and its impact on the
    environment. The legislation will build upon the progress the industry
    is making to address marine debris across the world. New proposals like
    the Marine Debris Response Trust Fund, as well as more research to
    understand the root causes of this global issue and Federal support for
    improving water and waste management infrastructure are all critical to
    any effort to comprehensively address the threat marine debris poses to
    our oceans and waterways.
        The industry itself has stepped up to the plastic waste challenge
    by innovating like it always has--developing new chemistries, investing
    in new recycling and collection technologies, developing ways to
    convert plastic waste into energy and creating the supply to meet the
    demand for recycled plastic content.
        In addition to finding new ways to increase the effectiveness of
    traditional recycling--typically a curbside pickup program or local
    drop off--the industry has explored advanced recycling through the use
    of new additives like compatibilizers that help incompatible resins
    chemically bond, and property enhancers that improve the strength,
    quality and ultimately value of recycled materials.
        The industry is also building on processes like chemical recycling,
    pyrolysis and gasification. Each of these processes are used to turn
    plastic polymers back into individual monomers--allowing materials to
    be reused in a variety of ways. In these processes, the chemical
    building blocks that make up the recycled plastic are recovered. The
    fundamental building blocks can in some cases be re-polymerized
    endlessly, giving them the qualities of brand-new, or virgin, resin.
    The transformation can occur through a variety of processes, all of
    which avoid combustion, or burning, of plastics.

        Chemical recycling is any process by which a polymer is chemically
    reduced to its original monomer form so that it can eventually be
    processed (re-polymerized) and remade into new plastic materials that
    go on to be new plastic products. Chemical recycling helps us overcome
    the limits of traditional recycling. It also helps manufacturers
    continue to push the boundaries of how, and where, recycled plastics
    can be used. Chemical recycling has long been used for nylons, and the
    industry is working to make it possible for other resin types.

        Pyrolysis, sometimes called ``plastics to fuel,'' turns non-
    recycled plastics from municipal solid waste (garbage) into a synthetic
    crude oil that can be refined into diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil
    or waxes. Using pyrolysis to convert non-recycled plastics into ultra-
    low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 14
    percent and water consumption by 58 percent, and it saves up to 96
    percent in traditional energy use as opposed to ULSD from conventional
    crude oil.

        Gasification turns non-recycled materials from municipal solid
    waste (garbage) into a synthesis gas, or ``syngas,'' which can be used
    for electric power generation or converted into fuel or chemical
    feedstocks, such as ethanol and methanol, some of which can also be
    used to make new plastics that go into consumer products.

        Numerous companies are already engaged in these processes across
    the country:

        Agilyx, an alternative energy company, recycles polystyrene (which
    most people know as StyrofoamTM) into high-value
    petrochemicals. Agilyx's polystyrene recycling process creates like-new
    materials while generating fewer greenhouse gases than manufacturing
    does.

        Shaw Industries Group uses chemical recycling for nylon and
    polyester fiber in carpets. The company has invested more than $20
    million to convert products that were once seen as waste into valuable
    resources. They reclaimed and recycled more than 800 million pounds of
    carpet from 2006 to 2015.

        Resinate Materials Group collects chemicals from plastic materials
    and works to promote the practical and economical value of chemically
    recycled plastics. The company has found several high-value
    applications for the chemicals harvested from recycled medical
    plastics. It uses certain types of recycled packaging to create
    coatings, adhesives and sealants.

        Patagonia, an outdoor clothing brand, chemically recycles non-
    wearable Capilene polyester and fleece products. Today, the brand
    features a collection of products made completely from recycled
    materials. Patagonia's chemical recycling process uses 76 percent less
    energy than the process used to make new polyester.

        Beyond that, the industry continues to expand its energy recovery
    capacity, which enables companies to convert post-use, non-recyclable
    plastics into a range of useful products such as fuels and electricity.
    Unfortunately, there are still some items that we can't recycle at this
    time and these items are typically sent to landfills.
        Energy recovery technologies are changing that. They complement
    recycling to add a new dimension to the solid waste management toolkit.
        It all starts with waste. Municipal solid waste is an underutilized
    resource of energy that can boost energy security, reduce landfill
    waste and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Energy recovery is a powerful
    process that has the potential to change the way we fuel the world. If
    all the non-recycled plastics in municipal solid waste were converted
    to oil instead of landfilled, these plastics could power up to 9
    million cars per year.
        When it comes to traditional recycling, companies are making big
    investments and commitments to collect more material and find new uses
    for it.

        For instance, here are a few recent examples of companies investing
    in expanding recycling:

         GDB International is making ``sizable investments'' in New
                Jersey and Ohio to pelletize plastics that were previously
                being sent to China.

         PureCycle Technologies is building $120 million
                polypropylene recycling facility in Ohio.

         East Terra built a new facility in Indiana.

         Merlin Plastics in British Columbia and Peninsula Plastics
                in California have made significant investments in mixed
                plastics recycling for the West Coast.

         Azek invested in 100-million-pounds per year processing
                line for PE films in Illinois.

         Green Tech Solution plans to invest $75 million in a new
                plastics and metals recycling facility in Blacksburg, South
                Carolina.

         The Carton Council invested in artificial intelligence and
                robotics to help MRFs sort recycled materials more
                efficiently in Colorado, Minnesota and Florida.

        That's just an example list. Additionally, we are seeing major
    shifts in the behaviors of plastics material suppliers who are forming
    strategic relationships with recyclers and brands. Again, some
    examples:

         Indorama entered a joint venture with Loop Industries for
                PET monomers from chemical recycling.

         Americas Styrenics has an off-take agreement with Agilyx
                for styrene monomer from chemical recycling. This joint
                venture is now call Regenyx and is moving quickly to
                commercial scale operations.

         LyondellBasell entered an agreement with Suez to jointly
                own QCP. This joint venture leverages the two partners'
                strengths and provides a platform for growth.

         Pepsi signed a multi-year supply agreement with Loop
                Industries.

         BP has an off-take agreement for oil produced by RES
                Polyflow from their pyrolysis system.

         A partnership was announced between the ReVital Polymers
                startup Pyrowave, and global plastics producer INEOS
                Styrolution to recycled polystyrene packaging.

        The plastics industry is changing the ecology of how plastics are
    made and the supply chains that create them.
        Brand Owners are also making unprecedented commitments to using
    recycled content. Those growing commitments are being tracked in the
    Sustainable Packaging Coalition's Goals database.
        There is not currently sufficient quantity and quality of material
    in the market today to meet the 2025 goals that have been set by big
    name companies. New investments will help meet that demand, but we must
    find a way to grow the supply of material available to feed the growing
    domestic recycling market--namely by implementing legislation that
    helps accomplish this goal.
        The U.S. plastics recycling industry is undoubtedly in a period of
    transition, but it is certainly not dead. As a result of some of the
    challenges facing this sector, the U.S. domestic processing capability
    and capacity are growing more and more robust and able to handle more.
    The industry believes we must focus on how to improve our collection
    and recovery systems to expand recovery opportunities for more plastic
    products--while also creating new supplies of recycled plastics to feed
    domestic investments.
        As an organization, PLASTICS has taken a leading role in promoting
    the aforementioned investments, commitments and technologies and
    exploring other ways to combat marine debris and deliver solutions to
    the end-users of our products.
        PLASTICS leads the Pacific Northwest Secondary Sorting
    Demonstration project--a 60-day recycling demonstration that involves
    installing a portable secondary sorting system where selected materials
    from four regional MRFs will be further sorted. This innovation will
    help create six additional streams of recyclables which will reduce
    waste going to landfills or adversely affecting our environment.
        Our Transportation and Industrial Plastics (TIP) Committee
    participates in the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Recycling Project.
    Launched in 2015, the ELV project aims to demonstrate the viability of
    collection and recycling of auto plastics from ELVs and build a basic
    recovery model, beginning with thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), which
    can be eventually expanded upon to include a broader range of resins
    and parts. To date, a variety of testing has been conducted on TPO
    recovered from bumpers and initial evaluation suggests there could be
    strong demand for the recycled TPO if the right end markets are
    identified. Through collaboration with various other association and
    member companies, PLASTICS works to prove out those end markets,
    creating new opportunity for auto recyclers to generate revenue.
        PLASTICS' Flexible Film and Bag Division launched the New End
    Market Opportunities (NEMO) for Film Project in 2017, which aims to
    develop a reliable source of materials for companies that can use
    recycled plastic bags, wraps and films in their products.
        We're also a part of the Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF)
    project which aims to make it easier for MRFs around the country to
    empower their communities with the ability to recycle flexible
    packaging--again, bags and wraps but also punches and other packages--
    in their normal recycling stream and curbside.
        PLASTICS also offers a number of tools and resources to companies
    in the industry that they can use to make their own operations more
    sustainable:
        We help educate companies on how they can turn their waste into
    valuable resources, or eliminate waste altogether using the tools
    offered through PLASTICS' Zero Net Waste program. Through this program
    manufacturers learn how to maximize diversion--achieving in some cases
    90 percent recycling rates and even 100 percent recovery rates--engage
    employees in environmental efforts and avoid landfill costs and
    generate revenue by recycling.
        Since the 1980s, PLASTICS and the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
    have jointly operated Operation Clean Sweep (OCS), an international
    stewardship program designed to prevent resin pellet, flake and powder
    loss and help keep this material out of the marine environment.
        More recently we've hosted a series of presentations for the
    industry focused on advancing sustainability, specifically on subjects
    like energy reduction through the Better Plants Program, zero net
    waste, sustainability 101 for new professionals, water reduction,
    benchmarking, transportation efficiency and calculating economic
    impacts.
        Despite all these efforts, we still need the support of Federal,
    state and local authorities and new legislative solutions to ensure
    that no American has to wonder if the water bottle they toss in the
    blue bin will end up being recycled or if it will end up as landfill
    fodder.
        Perhaps I could sum up our industry's position with a recent quote
    from Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe: ``We shouldn't treat plastic as
    an enemy, nor ostracize those who use it. What's needed is appropriate
    management of trash and to search for solutions through innovation.''
        Plastics are among humankind's greatest innovations and they've
    delivered an enormous benefit to public health and commerce all over
    the world. We need to learn how to live with these materials, because I
    can assure you, we would never want to have to live without them.

        Thank you.

                                     ______

       Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. McClintock to Mr. Tony
                   Radoszewski, Plastics Industry Association
        Question 1. During the hearing the topic of green house gas
    emission, as it relates to plastic products, was brought up on several
    occasions. Can plastics play a role in reducing green house gas
    emissions?

        Answer. Thank you for the follow-up question regarding plastics'
    impact on greenhouse gas emissions. To put it simply, plastics reduce
    greenhouse gasses when compared to currently available alternative
    materials. As I mentioned the day of the hearing, plastics would be
    replaced with less sustainable options if bans on plastics were
    implemented. Life cycle analyses continuously show how plastics is the
    better choice to reduce greenhouse gas. Whether that is by light-
    weighting vehicles which increases fuel mileage and decreases
    emissions, or the fact that paper, woven polypropylene and cotton/
    canvas bags all have a higher carbon footprint than traditional plastic
    bags. I could go on, but I will let the science speak for itself. I've
    included several studies that illustrate what I am referencing. It
    cannot be overstated: plastic as a material improves the overall
    picture as it relates to greenhouse gasses when looking at the full
    life cycle of a product.
        Plastics' lighter weight minimizes their environmental footprint by
    decreasing production of waste, energy use and carbon emissions through
    the full life cycle of the product. Beyond energy savings and water
    conservation, plastics help preserve the shelf-life of food, thereby
    preventing food waste, a huge problem worldwide. According to the EPA,
    most uneaten food decays in landfills, where it accounts for 34 percent
    of U.S. methane emissions (methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that is
    21 times more harmful to the environment than CO2.\1\)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-
    land/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many people think glass bottles are ``greener'' than plastic. But
    glass bottles require 46 percent more greenhouse gases and 55 percent
    more energy to produce than plastic bottles do.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://posterng.netkey.at/esr/viewing/
    index.php?module=viewing_poster&doi=10.1594/ecr2015/C-2599.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Chemistry Council (ACC) released several studies
    showing the positive impact plastics can have versus alternatives. In
    particular, a Franklin Associates studies, ``Life Cycle Impacts of
    Plastic Packaging Compared to Substitutes in the United States and
    Canada'' from April 2018 \3\ and ``Life Cycle Inventory of Packaging
    Options for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods'' from April 2004,
    pgs. ES15-17.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Reports-and-
    Publications/LCA-of-Plastic-Packaging-Compared-to-Substitutes.pdf.
        \4\ https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/LifeCycleInventory.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, a study by Trucost estimates that substitution of
    plastic components with alternative materials in passenger vehicles
    sold in North America in 2015 would lead to an increase in lifetime
    fuel demand for those vehicles of over 336 million liters (89 million
    gallons) of gasoline and diesel, and at an environmental cost of $2.3
    billion. This equates to an environmental cost increase of $169 per
    gasoline or diesel passenger car sold in North America in 2015. As
    another example, improved skin-type plastic packaging for sirloin steak
    can cut food waste by almost half compared to conventional plastic
    packaging (34 percent waste to 18 percent waste) with environmental
    savings of $606 per metric ton of beef sirloin sold. This equates to
    environmental savings of over $2.2 million for every additional 1
    percent of sirloin steak sold in improved packaging in the USA. This
    case study illustrates the significant environmental net benefits that
    plastic food packaging can deliver where it helps to avoid the waste of
    resource intensive food products.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Plastics-and-
    Sustainability.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On a national level, to substitute the 14.4 million metric tonnes
    of plastic packaging in the six packaging categories analyzed in one
    study, more than 64 million metric tonnes of other types of packaging
    would be required. The substitute packaging would require 80 percent
    more cumulative energy demand and result in 130 percent more global
    warming potential impacts, expressed as CO2 equivalents,
    compared to the equivalent plastic packaging.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/
    Publications/Impact-of-Plastics-Packaging.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A study by Denkstatt which looked at the impact of plastic
    packaging on life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
    in Europe showed that substituting plastic packaging with other
    materials would on average increase the respective packaging mass by a
    factor 3.6. The study also showed life cycle energy demand would
    increase by a factor 2.2 or by 1,240 million GJ per year, which is
    equivalent of 27 Mt of crude oil in 106 VLCC tankers or comparable to
    20 million heated homes.
        Additionally, greenhouse gas emissions would increase by a factor
    2.7 or by 61 million tonnes of CO2-equivalents per year,
    comparable to 21 million cars on the road or equivalent to the
    CO2-emissions of Denmark.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://denkstatt.eu/download/1994/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is our conclusion that plastic is the best overall material to
    use for a variety of reasons and these studies show over and over again
    sustainability is a success story of our material.

        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your follow-
    up question.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
    Radoszewski.
        I am going to remind the members of the Committee that Rule
    3(d) imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. And now, the
    Chairman is going to recognize Members for any questions they
    may wish to ask members of the panel or the witnesses.
        I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
    My first question goes to Dr. Jambeck.
        I want to follow up on something you have said, but also
    something that the Ranking Member spoke about in his
    introduction, where he said there is no real problem here in
    the United States, the real amount of plastics in the ocean
    really come from other countries, Asian countries and African
    countries.
        So, Dr. Jambeck, in your work, how much of the waste is
    entering the oceans from China, Vietnam, and other southeastern
    Asia countries. Can you tell us, is this the real picture of
    the origins of the waste?
        Can you tell us more about the full impact of the United
    States' role in contributing to oceans debris and plastic
    waste?
        And has that been partially hidden by our reliance on
    exporting our waste primarily to Asia?
        Can you respond to that? That is really how it was framed.
        Dr. Jambeck. Yes. That is a big question.
        But, certainly, when we first did those calculations of the
    global impact of plastic into the ocean, we couldn't take into
    account that import-export aspect. So, what we did see were
    these influencing factors--really rapidly developing economies,
    where infrastructure to manage the waste that comes with the
    increased waste generation, that comes with economic growth,
    that infrastructure was lagging behind.
        The areas that have been referred to here, so many of those
    rapidly developing economies, is where we saw the most leakage.
    But as I mentioned in my testimony, our per-person waste
    generation rate is two to six times that within the United
    States. And if we look at leakage as a percentage of what we
    generate, the reason the United States is the only high-income
    country within the top 20 countries within that original paper
    is because of our waste generation rates.
        So, in terms of a contribution to the global plastic
    quantity of waste, the 6.4 million that I mentioned--or
    billion, excuse me--we are a major contributor.
        So, what has become an issue that started in the 1990s, in
    terms of our single stream recycling, to make it easier we can
    put everything in one bin. That meant our commodities, as well
    as the WTO encouraging global trade, and China needing material
    for manufacturing, becoming the manufacturing hub of the world,
    that set up this rapid increase in exporting of our recycled
    materials. And for me, we looked at recycled plastic. Over half
    of that had been going to China until they stopped that in the
    end of 2017, which caused a cascade impact on our recycle
    industry within the United States itself. So, that has been a
    major problem, because we were relying on lower-income
    countries to manage that material, in many cases with China
    having trouble managing their own, and then us exporting on top
    of that. That contributes to pollution in those countries, as
    well.
        So, it is very interconnected and complex, but I hope that
    clarifies some.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to talk a little, raise
    some questions about--we know about the waste and plastics, and
    how much going into the ocean. But the question is how does
    this impact species?
        The first question is, we have just seen the IPBES--I hope
    that I pronounced it right--report that was released earlier
    this year that included plastic pollution as a threat to marine
    biodiversity. So, it is seen as a threat.
        My first question is, Mr. Danson, do you know if plastic is
    affecting species that are in danger of extinction?
        We are trying to understand not only how it gets into the
    ocean, but what some of the impacts are.
        Mr. Danson. Some of the impacts. Turtles, every species of
    turtle, is either on the endangered species list or close to
    it. And every species of turtle has ingested plastic. Plastic
    doesn't go away completely. It just breaks down into smaller
    and smaller pieces, so a turtle or a sea mammal or another fish
    may ingest that plastic. They think that they are full, because
    their stomachs are full of plastic, so they stop eating and
    they starve to death.
        Albatross end up dipping into what they think is some sort
    of something they like to eat in the water, but it is plastic.
    Then they feed it to their child, their little bird, and the
    bird dies for the same reason; they starve to death.
        So, yes, it is having an impact on whales, on many species.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I think my time has been up, so I
    am going to yield. I will now call upon Representative Graves,
    who looked very good sitting on the Democratic side there for a
    while, and we welcome him back.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have recruited a
    number of your Members to come to our side.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Are you coming to my district this weekend?
        Mr. Graves. I look forward to it. And I want to make note--
    Mr. Lowenthal and I, I was arguing with him awhile back and I
    said, you need to come see the people that I represent, the
    communities that I represent, so you understand why I say the
    things that I do, and why I vote the way that I do. And to his
    credit, he came down and spent 3 days in Louisiana. And I put
    him on a boat, an airboat. We put you on an airplane or a
    helicopter, maybe, took him all over the place, made him eat
    crawfish, all sorts of things--plastic-free crawfish.
        So, I do want to thank you, and I am looking forward to
    going over to your part of the country----
        Dr. Lowenthal. It is going to be great.
        Mr. Graves [continuing]. To see if we can talk some wisdom
    into those people.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Lowenthal. But now you have to ask questions. Now you
    have 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. No, seriously, thank you very much.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. I appreciate the friendship and I am looking
    forward to the opportunity to meet with some of your
    constituents.
        Thank you all very much for being here. And I want to be
    clear that I very much appreciate all of your efforts to remove
    plastic from the waste stream, a goal that I very much share. I
    represent part of the coast of Louisiana, and one of the top
    commercial and recreational fishing destinations and producers
    in the United States. And not just fishing for fun, but for
    subsistence, and a really important part of our culture,
    community economy in south Louisiana.
        Look, we can talk end game for a minute, but I am curious.
    There is a huge part of the waste stream that exists right now.
    You have plastic in the oceans. You have plastic that is
    somewhere in the recycle chain, as we know, with what China has
    done.
        What do we do right now, just putting the long-term aside,
    looking at the incredible waste streams that are in the ocean--
    and I am well aware and supportive of some of the legislation
    that we have pushed out of the House to deal with that. But
    what do we do with the current waste stream of plastic?
        The current waste stream that is supposed to be recycled,
    but with a China ban has created some problems with where it
    goes, what do we do with the plastic that is in the ocean?
        If you were king for the day, could make any decision, what
    would you do?
        Mr. Danson, I would like to ask all of your opinions.
        Mr. Danson. I would reduce single-use plastic. It is
    designed to live forever, and yet you use it once and throw it
    away. You take the easy things like that, that aren't really
    necessary----
        Mr. Graves. Can I just clarify my question, though?
        My point, though, is you have plastic that has already been
    singularly used, and so it is already somewhere in the waste
    stream. Whether it is in our oceans, it is somewhere in the
    shipping or somewhere, where it is going to be recycled, but it
    is somewhere in the waste stream already. How do we handle that
    waste stream?
        Mr. Danson. I am not sure. If it is in the ocean, I am not
    sure you can. It is like oil. Once it is in the water column,
    you are not going to get it out. You may be able to scoop some
    of the obvious bigger pieces out. You can do beach cleanup, and
    all of that. But really, compared to the amount of plastic that
    is about to be produced in the next 20, 30 years, it is going
    to be scaled up. You just can't compete with the amount of
    plastic production by recycling and picking up on the beaches.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you. Mr. Parras?
        Mr. Parras. What I see in our neighborhoods and communities
    all over the country is that plastic, it is actually made to be
    disposable, it seems like. It is affordable because it is
    plastic, so what happens is that people just don't consider it
    as trash, or as valuable, so they get rid of it. And until we
    start actually either charging more for the production of
    plastic so that we can have major cleanups, that may help.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you. Dr. Jambeck--and I just want to re-
    emphasize I am talking about the existing load that is there. I
    am interested to hear--our last witness talked a little bit
    about some of the technologies moving forward, but please.
        Dr. Jambeck. Sure, so quickly, what is already in
    existence, probably the easiest thing to grab are nets,
    something that your area is well familiar with, and they are
    one of the materials, typically nylon, very valuable, and could
    be recycled.
        The problem with what already exists is the diversity of
    plastic that is there, the challenges with recycling that. Most
    of it is getting landfilled here in the United States, so that
    is not the best thing. We wish that more of it could be
    recycled.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Radoszewski. Thank you. Today, our industry, the four
    value components of our value chain, from the resin
    manufacturers, the machinery manufacturers, processors, and end
    users are all actively engaged in recycling and re-use of these
    products, ranging from sorting to the plastics that are most
    predominately used in recycling, PET and high-density
    polyethylene, and then also developing technologies that can
    sort out the other materials and develop enough of a waste
    stream so that they can be used in applications.
        The other technologies that are being used right now are
    chemical recycling, in which we can take the products back to
    their basic form, re-polymerize it, and use it again in food
    contact packaging, where before, if it is recycled, we can't
    use it in food packaging. So, these are technologies that we
    are actively involved in right now.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
    Case for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair. The Ranking Member asked two, I
    think, good questions.
        The first is that he asked what exactly is the problem, and
    the second question that he asked was why should Americans take
    the blame for the excesses of the rest of the world. Those are
    two good questions in this debate.
        As to the first question, I will give a couple of examples
    from my perspective. In the state of Hawaii, we have the
    largest marine monument in our country, Papahanaumokuakea
    National Marine Monument. And there we get somewhere around 52
    metric tons of marine debris, almost all ghost fishing gear,
    every year. Every year.
        Now, why is that a problem? Well, it wrecks coral reefs,
    which are endangered around the world, and it degrades into
    smaller parcels, which then are ingested by our marine life. We
    have 1,400 Hawaiian monk seals left in the entire world, and
    declining. They get entrapped in this debris and die. That
    species is highly endangered. We have invasive species from
    elsewhere in the world hitching a ride on ghost fishing gear to
    Hawaii, the endangered species capital of the world, where we
    cannot take that kind of external impact.
        We have in Hawaii--I went, on the first World Reef Day on
    June 1 of this year, to the north shore of Oahu to a beach in
    Kahuku, where I tried to clean up a coastline with Sustainable
    Coastlines Hawaii, one of many grassroots organizations across
    our country trying to do something about it on a micro level. A
    beach that I used to walk on that was pretty white is now all
    different colors: green, yellow, red. Very small particles of
    plastics not degraded, but down into the level of ingestion at
    the very lowest levels of marine life. Now, that is what the
    problem is.
        As to the Ranking Member's second question, why should we
    take the hit when the rest of the world isn't doing anything
    about it. I think that is a really legitimate question, because
    it reminds me greatly of the debate over climate change, where,
    essentially, the same question is posed: Why should we reduce
    our emissions when the rest of the world is not doing that?
        And that leads us to international agreements, as what I
    can see as being one of the only ways to get at this problem
    from an international perspective.
        So, Mr. Danson, does Oceana partner with international
    organizations toward an international solution to plastics in
    the ocean, given that it does put us at a disadvantage for us
    to unilaterally curb our plastics use from several
    perspectives, and yet we need to do it. Cities and counties and
    states throughout the country are doing that. The City of
    Honolulu is doing it right now. Are you partnering with the
    rest of the world to try to find those international
    agreements?
        Mr. Danson. Yes, I believe we are. I think there are
    literally thousands, or at least 1,000 groups around the world
    working on plastics. This is a united effort. I can get you
    more specifics when I talk to the staff of Oceana.
        I mean, we haven't talked about climate change and
    greenhouse gases, but plastic is such a huge part of that
    story. I don't see how we cannot address our plastic, our
    greenhouse gas emissions--and if we don't do that, how we
    expect the rest of the world to follow along.
        So, yes, sorry, that is my----
        Mr. Case. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Radoszewski, you stated in your testimony that you and
    your industry are supportive of Save Our Seas 2.0, which is a
    bipartisan, bicameral bill introduced in both the House and the
    Senate, and that calls for much greater studies, some
    incentives at the Federal level, but it also calls for pursuing
    international agreements that would curb plastic use,
    especially single-use plastic use around the world.
        And your testimony sounded to be inconsistent with that
    position, that part of Save Our Seas 2.0. Are you supportive of
    pursuing international agreements whereby the entire world
    would agree to a reduction in plastic use and a reduction of
    dumping of plastics into the oceans?
        Mr. Radoszewski. I would say we are involved and eagerly
    working with international organizations to find solutions to
    the problems that exist today. We are engaged with--whether it
    is the British Plastics Union, the Canadian Plastics Industry
    Association, the New Zealand Plastic Association, working in
    consortium with them to define those abilities to minimize the
    waste in the ocean, and in the land, as well.
        Mr. Case. OK. That doesn't sound like what I am talking
    about. It sounds like you are working with the rest of the
    plastics industry around the world to manage it going into the
    oceans, but not necessarily reducing it.
        Mr. Radoszewski. Reducing or reusing or recycling, there
    are a lot of different options that we are looking at. And in
    the Save Our Seas 2.0, there are many parts of it that we do
    like and other parts that we would still like to negotiate
    with.
        Mr. Case. OK, thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking
    Member for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. McClintock.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I don't think Mr. Case was listening very carefully
    to what I said. I was referring specifically to properly-
    disposed-of plastics, plastics put in landfills, incinerated or
    recycled, none of which gets into the ocean.
        And we know that America accounts for less than 1 percent
    of plastic marine pollution.
        So, even if we went to the extreme of banning all plastics
    in the United States, in addition to having a devastating
    effect on the economy, it would at best affect just 1 percent
    of plastic pollution in our oceans.
        But Mr. Radoszewski, Dr. Jambeck asked a very intriguing
    question. Think about how much plastic you touch every day.
    Isn't that an indication of how useful plastic has become in
    our daily lives?
        Mr. Radoszewski. Absolutely. If you look at what plastics
    have replaced in the past, whether it is glass, paper, steel,
    aluminum, the reason why there is so much plastic is it is the
    best choice in terms of many of the packaging applications that
    it finds itself----
        Mr. McClintock. Isn't her question also a warning of how
    our quality of life would decline if the left is successful in
    restricting or banning it?
        Mr. Radoszewski. Well, I would think a lot of things that
    we have taken for granted today would be gone, and the
    accessibility to those foodstuffs that give us a higher quality
    of life, not only to Americans on the East and West Coast, but
    in the middle of the country, and poorer areas, as well. The
    availability to get foods to different parts of the world
    because of lower transportation costs, and the food stays safer
    and healthier and fresher are all reasons why the quality of
    life, not only in the United States but across world, has
    increased.
        Mr. McClintock. I think Dr. Jambeck's question also begs a
    correlated question. Let's think about everything that we touch
    every single day. Everything is either mined or it is grown, is
    it not?
        Mr. Radoszewski. I would think that would be right.
        Mr. McClintock. I don't know of a single exception to that.
    And that then opens a new question, and that is, what is the
    alternative to plastics? I used the example of a toothpaste
    tube. What would be the alternative to that?
        Mr. Radoszewski. Well, I think, even in your original
    testimony, you mentioned what it used to be. And, as far as we
    know, the only thing we could do is go back to what it was. And
    that would mean glass bottles. That would mean lead, I think,
    was what was once used in toothpaste tubes, because of the
    softness of it.
        So, if you go backward, you are talking about materials
    that have a higher carbon footprint, take more energy to
    produce, usually weigh more. The transportation costs also
    increase, so you have that aspect, as well.
        Mr. McClintock. So, at this juncture in our technology and
    science and advancement of our civilization, plastics are the
    most environmentally friendly alternative that we have, if we
    are to engage in the commerce that makes our civilization
    possible, is it not?
        Mr. Radoszewski. I think that is very right. In fact,
    again, I go back to the point of--let's look at food packaging.
    The ability to get a bratwurst at any place in the country at
    any time because it is wrapped in plastic and has a foam board
    packet, which is made of styrene, makes it accessible to
    everybody. Your meat stuffs, your sausage containers for your
    breakfast patties, all those are packaged in plastics because
    they get product to the shelf economically, safely, and fresh.
        Mr. McClintock. I am curious, Mr. Danson. How are we going
    to get our toothpaste, for example? How do you propose that we
    package our toothpaste in the future? You want to ban plastic
    containers? You want to go back to metal tubes or glass jars?
        Mr. Danson. You know, I don't really know the answer to
    that.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, that is the problem, isn't it? I have
    not heard a single alternative offered by the critics of
    plastics. And I think it has become very clear that plastics we
    have found to be a far better solution, economically and
    environmentally, to the materials that we have used in the
    past.
        Mr. Radoszewski, tell me how a ban on single-use plastics
    would impact the overall economy.
        Mr. Radoszewski. I think it would be detrimental to it. It
    could have an effect of putting people out of work. I don't
    think there is a quick response to supply the demand that the
    marketplace has created for these products. So, you would have
    a shortage of goods. You would have an economic decline because
    of lack of innovation of materials that we are seeing in the
    plastics industry. There is a whole host of things that would
    be affected immediately with some of these immediate bans----
        Mr. McClintock. And what would happen to consumer prices?
        Mr. Radoszewski. They would go up. I mean it is a simple
    example of supply and demand. If the demand is not satisfied by
    the supply, the price goes up.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, our automobiles, for example, instead
    of using plastic materials, would go back to using metal
    materials. I mean, I am just looking at these nameplates right
    here. They are plastic. In a previous day, they were brass,
    much more expensive and much harder on the environment to mine.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Radoszewski. It is. And, in fact, if you look at the
    CAFE standards, one of the reasons the automobile industry has
    been able to meet those standards over the last couple of
    decades is because of the incorporation of higher-performing
    plastics that do the same performance as metal----
        Mr. McClintock. So, once again, it is blame America first,
    let's harm the American consumer, even though the American
    consumer is responsibly disposing plastic products, and without
    any alternative. That, to me, sounds almost childlike.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Ranking Member. I now call upon
    Representative Cunningham for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    holding this hearing today on an issue that is near and dear to
    my heart, and also our constituents in the 1st District of
    South Carolina, which stretches from Charleston all the way
    down to Hilton Head.
        This issue is certainly on the minds of South Carolinians,
    many of whom dedicate their free time to support local beach
    cleanups in an effort to preserve our beautiful, God-given
    natural resources. And I am proud to represent so many of these
    conservation leaders.
        The local Surfrider Foundation chapter in my Congressional
    District hosts beach cleanups almost every single weekend.
        And we also have Andrew Wunderley of the Charleston
    Waterkeeper, who has made it his livelihood to protect and
    restore the quality of Charleston's waterways, while fighting
    for the right to swimmable, drinkable, fishable water.
        And, today, I actually came up here from Charleston with
    some of the plastic treasures that were recently found on our
    shoreline over the weekend from the Goose Creek Reservoir,
    which is the source of the Goose Creek water supply. So, let's
    see what we have here today--and this was just found this
    weekend.
        It looks like we have a used piece of Styrofoam here. We
    have a plastic water bottle; a single-use straw; a single-use
    plastic bag, and this actually looks like it has been kind of
    shredded or nibbled on, more than likely ingested by some type
    of marine life, this is what is left of it right now; some
    other straw, a shredded straw--we have all seen the pictures of
    sea turtles ingesting these and the damage that causes; a glass
    jar; and it looks like a potato chip bag, plastic.
        And this isn't abnormal, unfortunately. This has become
    kind of the norm of what washes up on our shore lines or into
    our waterways every single weekend, and a lot of people in this
    room are aware of it.
        In fact, earlier this year NOAA published a report on the
    economic impacts of marine debris. And without objection, I
    would like to enter this report for the record.
        Not surprisingly, this report found that getting rid of
    debris from our beaches can have a significant positive impact
    on the tourism economy. That is kind of a no-brainer.
        Mr. Danson, every year the Ocean Conservancy's
    International Coastal Cleanup Report shows the most frequently
    found items on the beach. In 2017, data showed, for the first
    time, that the top 10 most commonly found items were all made
    of plastic. And that trend continued in 2018.
        So, Mr. Danson, is what you saw here today, is this typical
    of the items typically found in beach cleanups, in your
    experience?
        And how do these discoveries help shape policy?
        Mr. Danson. Well, they are all single-use plastics, which
    is something we would like to reduce. They are all very
    convenient and easy for us to use in our everyday life, but
    create incredible problems, everything from greenhouse gases to
    sea animals dying from ingesting it. That is our disposable
    lifestyle, of which I am part of. It is very hard to deal with
    that every day.
        But people are coming up with solutions. There is a
    toothpaste called Bite that now comes in a little jar that is a
    powder, and you add water. That creates jobs and money and
    taxes. So, there are alternatives that we need to find.
        It has been incredibly useful, and now it has become
    incredibly dangerous. And I think that is the argument, not
    that the left or the right has any monopoly on being smart
    about things. It is this is a problem for all of us, and we all
    need to find ways to do it. And I do believe we are capable of
    that.
        Mr. Cunningham. I appreciate it, Mr. Danson, and I
    appreciate you all being here today.
        Unfortunately, my time is coming to a close. I know there
    has been some discussion here today as far as where the United
    States is, as far as the polluting and cleanup and everything.
    But I think we should all agree that the United States of
    America is a leader, and we should lead on this issue. And no
    matter where we fall in the list of polluters, we should be
    leading by example and being more responsible, being more of
    like a Sam, instead of the Norm, if you will.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cunningham. But just being out in the front on this,
    and recognizing that this is not sustainable, and we have to do
    every single thing in our power to make that come to an end.
        So, I appreciate the work you all are doing, I appreciate
    the time here today. And, with that, I would yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. And I now
    recognize Congressman Sablan for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    today's hearing.
        In my first few months here in Congress, in my first year,
    I had this naive thought. If there was a possibility for some
    committee members to get on an airplane and fly over this
    garbage patch that is in the Pacific--now it has a new name,
    actually--it is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and it is
    located just a little north of Hawaii, and right next to a
    place called Micronesia.
        I come from the Northern Marianas, which is a part of
    Micronesia--called Micronesia because it is a lot of small
    islands together. And you take all of those islands together,
    all of them, and put them together, it is hardly a large part
    of this garbage patch.
        We have in the Northern Marianas, islands that are
    conservation islands--and unless you are a scientist with a
    permit, you can't get on these islands. But there have been
    scientists who have gotten permits and gotten on and found, to
    their dismay, that they had to collect bags and bags and bags
    of garbage, plastic garbage.
        I don't mean any disrespect to all of you, thank you.
        Mr. Danson, sir, thank you very much for so many wonderful
    hours of great entertainment. I enjoyed your show, ``Cheers.''
        I also noticed, among the four witnesses on the table,
    sir--Mr. Rado----
        Mr. Radoszewski. It is OK. Call me Tony. How about that?
        Mr. Sablan. OK, Tony. Among all the four witnesses, you are
    the only one with a plastic bottle of water.
        Mr. Radoszewski. Right.
        Mr. Sablan. Yes. I mean you really are for your product.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Radoszewski. Sir, if you would like me to comment on
    that, I----
        Mr. Sablan. No, I am not asking you for a comment, it was
    just an observation, sir. You didn't have to bring that,
    because there are glasses of water in front of you.
        But, you see, these Micronesian Islands, yes, we probably
    contributed to some of this debris. But we are not responsible
    for that debris, and that thing is floating and growing. And it
    is one day going to cover Micronesia. Micronesia is--the area
    is the size of the 48 contiguous states.
        So, what do we do about that?
        Dr. Jambeck, how much effort and resource would you think
    it would take to clean up this garbage patch?
        Dr. Jambeck. What is floating out there is only about 3
    percent of what we think is going in every year. So, it is not
    a large amount. But you are absolutely right in that what is
    floating often ends up on islands like yours that sort of
    interrupt those currents.
        To be honest, the best way to sort of get that out is if it
    is ending up on land, and then cleaning that land, like they do
    in Hawaii.
        There are folks who are trying to design systems to collect
    out in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. But there are a lot of
    resources that go into that, and that is similar to the analogy
    of mopping up your bathroom floor while the tap is on.
        Mr. Sablan. OK. Just imagine what it would be like for
    Hawaii if that garbage gets any closer and just keeps going on
    land, because tourism is their major industry.
        I don't have an answer to the problem. I really don't. I do
    have a serious concern, because I eat a lot of fish, reef-
    caught fish, and tuna caught by trawling, and everything.
        I agree that these things get into the fish, so it gets
    into what I eat, probably, most likelihood. But I don't know. I
    don't have an answer. I am not as smart as the four of you
    sitting at the witness table, but we do need to act on, get
    something going, and try to find a way to resolve this, and
    maybe find an alternative to plastic that is not going to hurt
    people's jobs, you know?
        There has to be something. We are a much better Nation than
    we think we are, than we give ourselves credit for.
        My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. Next, the Chair
    recognizes Mr. Neguse for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for hosting
    this important hearing.
        The topic of plastic in our waters and oceans cannot be
    more pressing. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of the
    Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, aptly and alarmingly
    called ``It's Raining Plastic,'' was published in May, and
    found that plastic was found in 90 percent of rainfall samples
    in Denver and in Boulder, Colorado, which happens to be--
    Boulder, in particular--the area that I represent in Congress,
    amongst many others.
        An earlier study found that people are swallowing an
    average of 5 grams of plastic every week, about the weight of a
    credit card.
        For my constituents, who are suffering from this reality
    every day, ultimately, for the people across this Nation and
    the world who are doing the same, it is imperative that we
    address this issue.
        It just so happens, Mr. Chair, quite fittingly--literally,
    1 week ago, or a week-and-a-half ago, on October 16, 2019, a
    constituent of mine--her name is Annie, she is a sophomore at
    Fort Collins Polaris Expeditionary Learning School in my
    district--wrote to me about this very issue, about the issue of
    microplastics in our world's oceans and water systems at large.
        And in her letter she said, ``I am such a small part of
    this world, but I want to do everything I can to fix this
    problem.'' I am certainly inspired by her commitment to fixing
    this problem, and am heartened by the Chairman's decision to
    host this important hearing, and my fellow Committee members in
    their attempt to address this issue collectively, and, of
    course, to the witnesses who have joined us, and to their
    testimony.
        I will confess I had a number of competing scheduling
    commitments, from both a hearing perspective as well as
    meetings, but I was watching the testimony and some of the
    exchanges on the television in our office. And there was one
    exchange in particular that was a bit interesting to me, and I
    had noticed that Mr. Danson, you didn't have an opportunity to
    really respond to the question that was being posed by the
    gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
        So, I would like to go back to the point that he made about
    toothpaste. In 1984, how old were you, Mr. Danson?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neguse. I mean, if you are comfortable sharing it, of
    course. I don't want to----
        Mr. Danson. Tough question. I was born in 1947. Would you
    do the math for me?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neguse. I am a lawyer, not a mathematician,
    unfortunately. But I believe that that would put you at, what
    34----
        Mr. Danson. Sounds right.
        Mr. Neguse. Forty-three. I think that is right.
        Dr. Lowenthal. No, 47.
        Mr. Neguse. In 1984, when you were 43, what kind of----
        Mr. Danson. Thirty-three.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thirty-three.
        Mr. Danson. Go ahead. I am old. Go on.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neguse. That is all right. I don't want to get stuck on
    your age, Mr. Danson. What kind of car were you driving back in
    the 1980s?
        Mr. Danson. The 1980s?
        Mr. Neguse. Yes.
        Mr. Danson. A Ford Explorer for a while.
        Mr. Neguse. A Ford. And I take it it probably wasn't an
    electric car, right?
        Mr. Danson. No. But I did have the first EV-1.
        Mr. Neguse. All right. And I suspect you might have been
    renting back then, or you owned a home. Did your home have
    solar panels back then?
        Mr. Danson. No, it did not.
        Mr. Neguse. No. And my point is this, the reason why I ask.
    I was born in 1984. I am 35 today. I have a daughter who is 14
    months old. And I think a lot about the world that she will
    inherit. And much of the work that we do here in this Committee
    and in this Congress is about fighting to make sure that the
    world she inherits is a better one than we did.
        The transformative changes that have happened just in the
    last 35 years since I was born have been dramatic, right? And
    you have chosen, amongst many other citizens in our country--
    and, of course, several of the panelists here--to try to make a
    difference, to adopt strategies in your own life and the way in
    which you conduct yourself to be environmentally conscious and,
    of course, taking advantage of the technological capabilities
    that have also changed.
        So, this notion that we can't adapt, that removing
    microplastics--suddenly we all will be amiss--with the
    realities of trying to replace the plastic tube that carries
    toothpaste, to me is a false choice. Fundamentally, we all
    collectively are going to have to adopt strategies that enable
    us to move into a future in which microplastics are not
    polluting our planet and in the communities that we are all so
    lucky to call home. That, to me, is what this hearing should
    collectively be about.
        So, to the extent, Mr. Danson, that you would care to
    respond further, I know you did talk a little bit about some of
    the alternatives to toothpaste containers, and toothpaste
    brushes that are non-plastic options, but if you care to also
    illuminate further, or expound further on that----
        Mr. Danson. Just briefly, I do know that people will invent
    new things, and create more jobs, and not create stuff that is
    worse for the climate.
        But just in general, if you are talking about your
    children, then you are talking about climate change. You just
    are. And you are talking about greenhouse gases. And if you are
    talking about greenhouse gases, and we are in the middle of a
    Committee about ocean plastic, you have to acknowledge that the
    plastic is coming from petroleum and chemicals, and that life
    span, from the time of production to it lying on a beach, is
    the equivalent, all of the plastic, as the fifth-largest
    emitter of greenhouse gases.
        So, if you want to take care of your children, you have to
    start addressing these incredibly inconvenient things that we
    have all gotten used to, and enjoy. But they are no longer good
    for us, and they are going to land on our children and our
    grandchildren in a huge way.
        Mr. Neguse. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time, and
    apologize to Mr. Danson for revealing his age.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neguse. And with that, I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. The gentleman yields back.
        How old are you?
        Mr. Neguse. Thirty-five.
        Dr. Lowenthal. All right.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I would like to thank the
    witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
    their questions. I found this very interesting.
        The members of the Committee may wish to have some
    additional questions for the witnesses, and we are going to ask
    you to respond to these in writing.
        Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
    submit witness questions within 3 business days following the
    hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10
    business days for their responses.
        Just before I end, I want to introduce into the record a
    journal article from Volume 9 of the journal Nature Climate
    Change of 2019, which was a study that showed that the global
    life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from conventional plastics
    which were produced in 2015 were 1.8 billion metric tons of
    carbon dioxide equivalent. This is approximately the annual
    emissions, as I pointed out in my introduction, of 462 coal-
    fired power plants. That is what we are just talking about in
    terms of CO2 emissions. I want to get that formally
    into the record.
        Mr. McClintock. A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Yes?
        Mr. McClintock. I am wondering whose time are you speaking
    on? Because we are out of questions. If we are, I am prepared
    to engage----
        Dr. Lowenthal. No, I am just introducing something into the
    record.
        Mr. McClintock. And there is no objection.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        If there is no further business, without objection, this
    Committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submission for the Record by Reps. Bishop and Lowenthal
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

                          COMMITTEE'S OFFICIAL FILES]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Cunningham

      --  Contracted Report to NOAA 2019, The Effects of Marine
                Debris on Beach Recreation and Regional Economies
                in Four Coastal Communities: A Regional Pilot Study

                                     [all]