By Patti Wood

Gov. Kathy Hochul has attempted to address the monumental issue of how to deal with plastic pollution, plastic recycling and plastic end-of-life decisions in the state budget, but unfortunately her plan falls short of getting it right. And we need to get it right.

Why?

There are over 350 million tons of plastic produced each year, of which 91 percent is not recycled. The United States generates the most plastic waste per capita of any country on the planet. Researchers estimate that between 1.13 million to 2.24 million metric tons of the United States’ plastic waste enter the environment.

Our best answer yet to address this problem is in Extended Producer Responsibility  programs, based on a polluters pay principle, which are gaining traction among both state and federal lawmakers. EPR programs seek to shift the financial burden and physical responsibility for the environmental impacts of products away from taxpayers and onto producers and packaging manufacturers.

In many places EPR programs are mostly implemented for electronic waste, but some include products such as carpets, mattresses and pharmaceuticals. However, with rising concerns about ocean plastics, microplastics permeating every corner of our planet and with China and other countries now refusing to take our plastic waste, it is critical that we adopt really good legislation to deal with plastic packaging waste. A recent Pew Research Center report estimates that without decreases in plastic production and increases in recycling, by 2040 plastic pollution entering the ocean will almost triple from 11 to 29 million metric tons each year.

As of now, only two states have successfully passed EPR legislation for plastic packaging, but many more are moving forward this year. The federal government is considering the “Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021,” introduced by U.S. Sen. Jeffrey Merkley (D-Ore.) and U.S. Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.). Merkley says, “Many of us were taught the three Rs—reduce, reuse, and recycle—and figured that as long as we got our plastic items into those blue bins, we could keep our plastic use in check and protect our planet.

But the reality has become much more like the three Bs—buried, burned, or borne out to sea. The impacts on Americans’ health, particularly in communities of color and low-income communities, are serious. Plastic pollution is a full-blown environmental and health crisis, and it’s time that we pass this legislation to get it under control. As with most legislation, though, there are many stakeholders that are pushing for amendments that will weaken the bill. And this is also true of state EPR bills.

What’s at stake right now is New York either becoming a national leader in dealing with plastic packaging through the passage of a truly effective EPR bill or letting the American Chemistry Council and the Plastic’s Industry Association decide how it should be done by essentially making up their own rules, defining who is accountable and not having to provide any mandatory reduction goals.

The governor’s EPR proposal gets a failing grade because it relies on the second scenario, industry self-regulation. And state Sen. Todd Kaminsky has also introduced an EPR bill that lacks real teeth and could set us back years.

Let’s look at what’s wrong with their EPR bills. First, as mentioned above, they have industry fingerprints all over them, but according to the non-profit Beyond Plastics, both bills need to:

• Set requirements and standards for reduction, reuse, recyclability and recycled content
• Eliminate toxic plasticizing chemicals from plastic packaging
• Ensure that recycling must truly mean recycling, and not a corrupted definition to include waste-to-fuel, waste-to-energy, incineration, pyrolysis, gasification or chemical recycling, all of which cause additional pollution in the environment
• Fund municipalities to fix broken recycling systems, and support projects that reduce packaging waste and create reuse and refill systems

Over 160 environmental organizations are calling on Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to remove the governor’s EPR proposal from the budget and instead wait to consider better EPR legislation that will be introduced by Assemblyman Steven Englebright, chair of the Assembly Committee on Environmental Conservation. The groups expect to see a strong bill from Englebright that will substantially reduce the financial burden on taxpayers and municipalities for recycling programs, decrease pollution caused by packaging, and extend the life of municipal landfills.

Assemblyman Englebright will also call on the state Legislature to expand the highly successful Bottle Bill to include more types of bottles and move the deposit from 5 cents to 10 cents. We certainly have not been keeping up with the cost of living for all of those “redeemers” who provide a real service by picking up empty bottles and cans and taking them to recycling centers.

Extended Producer Responsibility bills’ time has come. Put simply, consumers are beginning to wonder why they have to foot the bill for giant recycling centers or landfills or massive cleanup operations while manufacturers rake in tremendous profits and walk away.

Voters can demand that politicians enact tough Extended Producer Responsibility laws and we will have one soon. But please, if you care, tell Gov. Hochul you want the EPR proposal out of her budget (518-474-8390) and tell Sen. Kaminsky that his EPR bill will set us back years in getting a truly fair and effective bill (518-455-3401). You can also thank Assemblyman Englebright (518-455-4804) for his more comprehensive EPR bill that will truly have an impact.