[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]