Moving forward with the Chester County Single-Use Plastic Bag Ban Coalition! More info here.
Featured post
Cutting plastic waste
Leave a reply
Featured post
Chesco Environment Calendar
POWER Interfaith
by Kathy McDevitt
POWER Interfaith is “a grassroots organization of Pennsylvania congregations and individuals committed to racial and economic justice on a livable planet.”
I attended the excellent POWER interfaith team meeting on Jan. 30, 2024. One of their five focus areas is Climate Justice. Below are slides of their accomplishments and goals in the climate justice area. They could definitely be strong allies for those of us working in that field.
The Plastics Problem in PA and everywhere
Single-use bag ban in your community
Is your community considering a ban on single-use plastic bags? There are many advantages: cutting down on litter (which has to be picked up or it disfigures nature, reducing use of fossil fuel (from which plastic is made), reducing costs to businesses and consumers (someone has to pay for those throwaway bags), and reducing costly shutdowns to clean recycling equipment gummed up by bags.
How many plastic bags a year would be saved in your community, based on population? See Environment America’s Single-use Plastic Bag Ban Waste Reduction Calculator. It’s based on population, at the rate of about 300 bags per resident; the tool takes a while to load; enter just the municipality, not state.)
What other factors need to be considered? See many resources at PennEnvironment, including a model ordinance.
What are the answers to some common issues that may arise as public officials consider a ban? Here are some points from a 12/31/22 memo from Maurice M. Sampson II of Clean Water Action to members of Philadelphia City Council as they considered strengthening the established ban by levying a fee of $.15 on all bags, whether plastic or paper. Download the 5-page memo here.
• Why is a fee for single-use carry-out bags necessary?
Experience shows that a straight ban on throwaway plastic bags multiplies the use of throwaway paper bags, which are more expensive. The most equitable solution is to add a flat fee for all bags a consumer used fasr to the consumer’s bill. Savings to the business from not having to buy and give away bags can be passed on to consumers. Consumers rapidly learn to carry their own reusable (and more resistant) bags.
• What is the impact of bag fees on low-income residents?
Studies show that low-income people adjust their behavior just like anyone else. Exceptions to the fee would prevent businesses, whether large or small, from saving the cost of bags and would fail to reduce litter and environmental impacts locally.
Scary fact: in the absence of restrictions and fees, Americans consume an average of almost one single-use plastic bag a day! Please try to make every day a day without a throwaway bag! And of course, never go shopping without the needed number of reusable bags.
Economics of Single Use Plastic Bags (Easttown EAC, 2022)
[download pdf here]
During the February 22nd, 2022, meeting, the EAC’s single use plastic bag ordinance was initially presented to the Board of Supervisors. Following the presentation, the Supervisors asked for further information regarding the economics of single use plastic bag bans. The following is a summary of information to meet that request.
In general, single use plastic bags are economically problematic because they are derived from fossil fuels, are a source of litter on land and water, create tangles and jams in recycling and wastewater processing equipment and prove costly to municipalities in terms of time and money to manage. Most of the economic data currently available focuses on the economic costs of plastics rather than the savings associated with bag bans. However, there is supportive data regarding the role of bag bans and businesses/business owners.
For business owners, removing plastic bags from the list of supplies businesses require saves them money in the long run. Currently, single use plastic bags are offered to customers free of charge and are a cost business owners must account for in their pricing for goods and services. While the per unit purchasing cost of paper bags is higher than that of plastic bags ($0.15 versus $0.01) the proposed ordinance requires customers to pay for paper bags ($0.15 fee) so businesses can recoup these costs.
Prior to the statewide plastic bag ban in CA, San Francisco’s Office of Economic Analysis found the following: ‘Their models predicted a “slight positive impact on the local economy” due to the overall decrease in bag-related costs post-ordinance, and to the economic multiplier effects that could occur alongside the projected increase in consumer spending associated with decreasing product costs passed on by retailers. The same study reported that impacted San Francisco retailers would enjoy a savings of $3 million over the course of a year under the strengthened ban, due to the forgone purchasing costs of single use bags.1
Additionally, with the proposed ordinance, businesses will be given a 90-day transition period during which they can utilize their existing supply of plastic bags without risk of penalty. The length of this transition period was determined based on the findings of the business community survey conducted in Easttown Township during the fall of 2021.
Beyond local businesses, plastic pollution in costly to local municipalities, utilities, and services. Penn Environment states, “Bags are an economic burden on local governments and taxpayers, with millions of dollars in hidden, externalized costs.”2For example, the Clean Air Council of PA has estimated the production stream costs (from fracking to being thrown away) of plastic bags to be between $20-$30 per year for Philadelphia taxpayers. Removing these bags from a municipality ultimately removes this cost for the tax base.3
Within Philadelphia, the Water Department is spending heavily to pull litter out of sewer drains and other stormwater infrastructure. They estimate that plastic pollution is doubling the maintenance costs of their green stormwater infrastructure, requiring 32 dedicated cleaning crews to remove items from their infrastructure. In 2017, city crews removed 67 tons of debris from their stormwater system, much of it being single use plastics. It bears repeating, cleaning up this litter comes with additional costs to users.4
Furthermore, “a recent study by Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful estimated Pennsylvania spends $48 million a year to clean up litter. The report included an estimate that PennDOT spends approximately $13 million annually in roadside litter clean up.”5 On average, Philadelphia uses approximately 1 billion plastic bags each year, and it costs the city between $7 and $12 million dollars to remove them.6 New York City has similar numbers on an annual basis: “single-use, carry-out bags account for 1,700 tons of residential garbage each week, which equates to 91,000 tons of plastic and paper carry-out bags each year and presently costs the City $12.5 million annually to dispose of this material outside the city.”
Nationally, cities, towns, and businesses pay roughly $80 a ton for single use plastic bags to either be buried in landfills or be incinerated, both actions have high externality costs associated with them.7 Hypothetically, if we were to apply this figure to Easttown Township, we are roughly 1/800th the size of New York City and thus produce approximately 114 tons of plastic and paper carry out bags each year, or $9,120.00 in disposal costs.
Another major way single use plastic bags prove economically burdensome is for recycling facilities. “Single use plastic bags are the number one contaminant found in recycling facilities, clogging machinery and decreasing the efficiency of recycling programs in Pennsylvania that are often already struggling.”8
The extent of this problem can be demonstrated in San Jose CA, which spent nearly $1 million per year on repairing plastic bag related damages. In a similar case, a recycling factory had to close down up to six times a day in order to remove the trapped plastic bags in the machinery.” Several recycling facilities in NY have estimated costs associated with extra operational costs for removing single use plastic bags from their lines between $300,000 to $1 million per year.9
Beyond the local economic impacts, plastic pollution costs $13 billion in economic damage to marine ecosystems per year. This includes losses to the fishing industry and tourism, as well as the cost to clean up beaches.10 This includes local beaches like the Jersey Shore, where twice annual clean ups remove litter from the beaches and accessible waters. In 2017, 84% of the material collected was plastic or foam plastic and 66% of that number was of the single use variety including single use plastic carry out bags. On average, residents of coastal areas spend $15 per year to clean up their beaches in taxes.11
Finally, a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed plastic bags ban would be incomplete if the incalculable environmental damages caused by single use plastic bags was not mentioned.
Single use plastic bags are a petroleum product; they require 12 million barrels of oil annually to produce, equating to 4% of the world’s annual oil budget.12 The emissions associated with producing plastics will exceed those from burning coal by 2030.13 The economic costs of these emissions at the global level are unknown but the impacts to climate change and air pollution are considerable and long lasting. The Equinox Center in San Diego calculated that a plastic bag ban and fee model similar to the one proposed in Easttown Township would reduce San Diego’s energy (74 million Megajoules (MJ)), CO2 footprint (6,418 tons) and solid waste (270,000 kg) on an annual basis.14 Again, if we were to use these calculations at a per capita basis for Easttown, this would hypothetically equate to a CO2 footprint of 19.7 tons and 831 kg of solid waste for the Township.
Beyond global energy and emissions constraints, the major environmental risk posed by single use plastic bags is their inability to decompose. Over time, plastics degrade to smaller microplastics that can be ingested by the smallest species at the base of our aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Ultimately, limiting single use plastics in the food web limits our own intake of plastics from our food and water sources.
In summary, plastic bag bans reduce all these costs for municipalities, costs which are passed on to residents, by reducing the amount of plastic pollution and waste we need to handle. For businesses the impact is that a plastic bag ban with a fee on other bags reduces overall single use bag use. With less demand for bags, businesses don’t need to purchase and stock as many bags, saving them costs. And although paper is more expensive than plastic, having a built-in fee for paper bag covers the difference, so businesses don’t need to pay more.
Easttown Township has an opportunity to be one of the first local municipalities to pass an ordinance of this type and help push the envelope for our community.
1 “Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts”. Equinox Center. Oct. 2013. https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf /.
2 Savitz, Faran. Email correspondence reg. economic benefits of a bag ban. Google. Mar. 2022.
3 Plastic Bag Ban Information Session #2 for Delaware County, PA. Logan Welde, Clean Air Council, 2/8/2022.
4 “Looking to Cut Plastics pollution in the ocean? Start upstream.” Jamarillo, Catalina. Jul. 2018.
5 Savitz, Faran. Email correspondence reg. economic benefits of a bag ban. Google. Mar. 2022.
6 Keep Pennsylvania Beautiful. “Litter & Illegal Dumping in Pennsylvania: A study of nine cities across the commonwealth” Jan. 2020. https://www.keeppabeautiful.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KPB-Litter-Cost-Study-013120.pdf/.
7 “An analysis of the Impact of Single Use Plastic Bags. Options for the New York State Plastic Bag Legislation.” New York State Plastic Bag Task Force. Jan. 2018. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/dplasticbagreport2017.pdf/.
8 Savitz, Faran. Email correspondence reg. economic benefits of a bag ban. Google. Mar. 2022.
9 “An analysis of the Impact of Single Use Plastic Bags. Options for the New York State Plastic Bag Legislation.” New York State Plastic Bag Task Force. Jan. 2018. https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/dplasticbagreport2017.pdf/.
10 “Plastic Waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems, UN Agency says” United Nations. Jun. 2014. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/06/471492-plastic-waste-causes-13-billion-annual-damage-marine-ecosystems-says-un-agency/.
11 “Looking to Cut Plastics pollution in the ocean? Start upstream.” Jamarillo, Catalina. Jul. 2018, https://whyy.org/segments/looking-to-cut-plastics-pollution-in-the-ocean-start-upstream/.
12 “Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts”. Equinox Center. Oct. 2013. https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf/.
13 Plastic Bag Ban Information Session #2 for Delaware County, PA. Faran Savitz, PennEnvironment, 2/8/2022.
14 “Plastic Bag Bans: Analysis of Economic and Environmental Impacts”. Equinox Center. Oct. 2013. https://energycenter.org/sites/default/files/Plastic-Bag-Ban-Web-Version-10-22-13-CK.pdf/.
The Easttown Plastic Bag Ban
On January 1, 2023, Easttown’s ban went into effect. You can find a comprehensive FAQ page on the Easttown site. Download the 2-sided pdf designed for commercial establishments here.
Click here for the text of Easttown’s very useful and well-footnoted 2022 “Economics of Single Use Plastic Bags” document, showing how—alongside the environmental benefits, of course—retailers, recycling facilities and municipalities gain financially from a reduction in plastic waste. Here are the concluding paragraphs:
…Beyond global energy and emissions constraints, the major environmental risk posed by single use plastic bags is their inability to decompose. Over time, plastics degrade to smaller microplastics that can be ingested by the smallest species at the base of our aquatic and terrestrial food webs. Ultimately, limiting single use plastics in the food web limits our own intake of plastics from our food and water sources.
In summary, plastic bag bans reduce all these costs for municipalities, costs which are passed on to residents, by reducing the amount of plastic pollution and waste we need to handle. For businesses the impact is that a plastic bag ban with a fee on other bags reduces overall single use bag use. With less demand for bags, businesses don’t need to purchase and stock as many bags, saving them costs. And although paper is more expensive than plastic, having a built-in fee for paper bags covers the difference, so businesses don’t need to pay more.
Model handout for Easttown retailers:
CCEA Common Environment Agenda
CCEA’s 26-page Common Environment Agenda (click here), presented to the County Commissioners in 2022, contains many valuable recommendations.
PADEP policy on environmental justice
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s revised Environmental Justice policy of September 2023 is helpful to groups like ours in making the case for our pro-environment and pro-people policies. Here is the underlying definition that we must strive to be worthy of:
Environmental Justice (EJ) — Environmental justice means the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, wealth, race, color, national origin, area of residence, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other activities that affect human health and the environment so that people: are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices. It further involves the prevention of future environmental injustice and the redress of historic environmental injustice.
Environmental degradation affects everyone through the heating climate, violent weather, chemical pollution, and much more; but it has the greatest negative impact on those who cannot afford to relocate out of a flood plain, live in a leafy neighborhood, eat organic food, drink lead-free water, and all the other advantages of disposable income.
You can download the full DEP text here. It is now in effect but could be revised based on public comments received up to November 30.
Here is the paragraph describing the purpose of this update:
The purpose of the policy is to facilitate environmental justice in
communities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to ensure
equity and environmental justice in the administration of DEP’s
constitution, statutory, and regulatory duties. This policy outlines
measures that DEP will take to proactively educate, engage, and empower
Pennsylvanians living in EJ Areas across the Commonwealth; ensures
enhanced opportunities for community involvement and public
participation in the permit application process for permits in EJ Areas;
explains how DEP will prioritize Environmental Justice in its compliance
and enforcement activities; identifies DEP grant opportunities to facilitate
environmental justice; and, identifies mitigation and restoration practices
for consideration by applicants for projects in EJ areas that have been
impacted by environmental issues. DEP also seeks to make its permitting
process more efficient and expeditious by integrating the Office of
Environmental Justice (OEJ) in the process to lead the policy’s Enhanced
Public Participation guidelines, while also ensuring the use of best practices and timely execution of the community engagement process.
Please note that the CCEA Common Environmental Agenda, presented to the County Commissioners in 2022, includes many recommendations on environmental justice; see that document here and search both justice and income.
Here’s how the DEP describes the current “interim final” policy updating its 2004 predecessor:
After extensive public comment reviews and policy revisions, DEP adopted an interim final Environmental Justice Policy on September 16, 2023. Additionally, DEP has an improved mapping tool to better identify EJ areas within the Commonwealth and has an expansive and elevated Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). There will be a formal public comment period until November 30, 2023. The EJ Policy from 2004 will only apply to permit applications received before September 16 and grant applications relating to materials released before September 16.
The interim-final EJ Policy includes several sections that enhance the previous Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy which had been in effect since 2004.…
As always, implementation will be key. The policy applies explicitly only to DEP applications and authorizations, and:
The policies and procedures outlined in this guidance are intended to
supplement existing requirements. Nothing in the policies or procedures
shall affect regulatory requirements.
The policies and procedures herein are not an adjudication or a regulation.
DEP does not intend to give this guidance that weight or deference. This
document establishes the framework within which DEP will exercise its
administrative discretion in the future. DEP reserves the discretion to
deviate from this policy statement if circumstances warrant.
So, that is a challenge to groups and individuals concerned about environmental justice: to press DEP to follow its own “guidance” and others to adopt it.
Watersheds of Chester County
Chester County’s history as a transportation hub and an early industrial and commercial center depended on its geography. On the map below for your reference, from Chester County, the reddish watersheds empty into the Schuylkill River, the bluish ones directly into the Delaware River, the pale-colored ones in the center into the Christina River (which flows into the Delaware 2 miles from Wilmington), and in the southwest, into Chesapeake Bay, whether via the Susquehanna River (greenish) or directly (purplish).
Info on hydrogen
Hydrogen is a contentious and potentially explosive way of storing energy created by other means (and that’s the crux of the matter, along with whether hydrogen is the best energy to use in certain specialized situations). It’s in the news because under the Inflation Reduction Act, the US government is generously subsidizing research and models of use, and because the PA government has been committing big taxpayer funding in a bid to sponsor a plant tied to the fracking industry.
Here are some articles with links—not always in agreement with each other—contributed by several CCEA members who were present at our Jan. 21 meeting:
“Hydrogen Folly Grows: 55% Used In Oil Refineries — Demand Will Drop, Not Rise,” by Michael Barnard, CleanTechnica, 3/13/21
“Reclaiming Hydrogen for a Renewable Future: Distinguishing Oil & Gas Industry Spin from Zero-emission Solutions ,” by S. Saadat and S. Gersen, EarthJustice, 8/21 (41 pages; see also “Summary for Policymakers“).
“How Green is Blue Hydrogen?,” by R Howarth and M. Jacobson, Wiley Online LIbrary, 8/12/21.
“Hydrogen: Future of Clean Energy or a False Solution?.” by Cara Bottorff, Sierra Club, 1/4/22.
“Environmental Health Project (EHP) Statement on the Public Health Impacts of Blue Hydrogen Production,” Environmental Health Project, by Alison L. Steele, 8/3/22.
Blue Hydrogen: A Threat to Public Health?,” Environmental Health Project, 8/16/22.
“The hydrogen bill gifts $4 billion to the fossil fuel industry, by Patrick McDonnell, PennFuture, 10/25/22.
“Biden’s dilemma: How do you define ‘green’ hydrogen?,” by David Iaconangelo, EnergyWire, 12/23/22.
“Should We Really Use Renewable Electricity to Make Green Hydrogen? Not Always,” by Gary J. DiElsi, Power Magazine, 1/3/23
“Blue Hydrogen: What You Need to Know,” Environmental Health Project (video of panel discussion), 1/25/23.
“Cheap clean hydrogen? Not so fast, energy giants say,” by David Iaconangelo, EnergyWire, 2/9/23.
Chester County Environment Alliance 