Forget It Jake, It's Baltimore

The Balmer Banner, After Baltimore increased fees, less trash came to its landfill

After Baltimore increased the disposal fees at its landfill for the first time in more than three decades, the amount of garbage delivered there by large commercial haulers dropped by nearly half — almost overnight.

The tonnage hauled by private companies to the Quarantine Road Landfill, located in Hawkins Point at Baltimore’s industrialized southern tip, plummeted to 4,364 in November and December from 8,585 tons in the same months in 2024, according to Department of Public Works figures. The drop is an apparent response to the city’s October decision to double its per-ton disposal fee.

City finance officials expect the new tipping fee — which increased from $67.50 to $135 per ton — to boost revenues this year, though not as much as hoped. According to Department of Finance projections, the loss of all that garbage will yield about $4 million less than what budget writers had anticipated.
. . .
t’s not clear where the thousands of tons of trash diverted from Quarantine Road have gone. Publicly owned landfills in surrounding jurisdictions, such as Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties, don’t permit dumping of waste from outside their borders — meaning a lot of this trash may be headed out of state.

I expect the raise in price was probably necessary; if the hadn't raised rate in 30+ years, inflation had considerably eroded the currency (Thanks, Brandon). Still, you have to wonder how much more garbage is going to just end up on the streets and in the waterways. 

I Suspected As Much

 The Guardian, ‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body

High-profile studies reporting the presence of microplastics throughout the human body have been thrown into doubt by scientists who say the discoveries are probably the result of contamination and false positives. One chemist called the concerns “a bombshell”.

Studies claiming to have revealed micro and nanoplastics in the brain, testes, placentas, arteries and elsewhere were reported by media across the world, including the Guardian. There is no doubt that plastic pollution of the natural world is ubiquitous, and present in the food and drink we consume and the air we breathe. But the health damage potentially caused by microplastics and the chemicals they contain is unclear, and an explosion of research has taken off in this area in recent years.

 

However, micro- and nanoplastic particles are tiny and at the limit of today’s analytical techniques, especially in human tissue. There is no suggestion of malpractice, but researchers told the Guardian of their concern that the race to publish results, in some cases by groups with limited analytical expertise, has led to rushed results and routine scientific checks sometimes being overlooked.

The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.

There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say. It could also help lobbyists for the plastics industry to dismiss real concerns by claiming they are unfounded. While researchers say analytical techniques are improving rapidly, the doubts over recent high-profile studies also raise the questions of what is really known today and how concerned people should be about microplastics in their bodies.

 

“Levels of microplastics in human brains may be rapidly rising” was the shocking headline reporting a widely covered study in February. The analysis, published in a top-tier journal and covered by the Guardian, said there was a rising trend in micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) in brain tissue from dozens of postmortems carried out between 1997 and 2024.

However, by November, the study had been challenged by a group of scientists with the publication of a “Matters arising” letter in the journal. In the formal, diplomatic language of scientific publishing, the scientists said: “The study as reported appears to face methodological challenges, such as limited contamination controls and lack of validation steps, which may affect the reliability of the reported concentrations.”

One of the team behind the letter was blunt. “The brain microplastic paper is a joke,” said Dr Dušan Materić, at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany. “Fat is known to make false-positives for polyethylene. The brain has [approximately] 60% fat.” Materić and his colleagues suggested rising obesity levels could be an alternative explanation for the trend reported in the study.

What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. My own field of science (trace element biogeochemistry) was plagued with problems of false positives. It turned out that to get accurate trace element measurement require fanatical attention to anti-contamination  efforts.

A particularly telling example is the saga of Fritz Haber his attempt to pay off Germany's WWI debt by extracting gold from seawater. Now, Fritz Haber is a giant among chemists. His development of the  Haber process for making ammonia from nitrogen gas and methane allows mankind to sustain it's current population. Of course, for him it was a method to make nitric acid for gun powder and explosives, but it did earn him a Nobel Prize.

His preliminary attempts to extract gold from seawater suggest that it might be a viable method to get gold and pay off post-Versailles war debt. Via Google AI, "The German Atlantic Expedition (1925–1927) on the research vessel Meteor aimed to study the South Atlantic, famously utilizing sonar to map the seabed and revealing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Chemist Fritz Haber initiated this effort, hoping to extract gold from seawater to pay off Germany's post-WWI war debts." Of course, it turned out that the initial attempts were false positives, and that it didn't work on a large scale. Seawater contains so little dissolved gold it is almost impossible to measure, even today. 

We relearned those lessons in the 1980s when reliable measurement of some elements in seawater began to be made. I assume the people who measure low levels of organic contaminants went through the same learning curve. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Extra Value Meal ready for your clicks at The Other McCain.

VA Government Bans Single Use Plastic

 Northam order phases out Va. state use of plastics

An executive order from Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam will phase out all single-use plastics at state agencies, colleges and universities.

The order bans state use of disposable plastic bags, single-use plastic and polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam) food service containers, plastic straws and cutlery and single-use plastic water bottles that aren’t for medical or public-safety use. The ban takes effect in 120 days.

And then all non-medical, single-use plastics and polystyrene objects are scheduled to be reduced by 25% by Dec. 21, 2022; 50% by Dec. 31, 2023; 75% by Dec. 31, 2024, and fully eliminated by Dec. 31, 2025.

“Plastics are the most pervasive type of marine debris in our ocean and along our coasts,” the order says. “In 2019 alone, volunteers collected more than 12,000 plastic bags and 13,000 plastic bottles, in addition to many other types of marine debris, from Virginia’s coastline.”

A statement from Northam’s office cites an Environmental Protection Agency study that found that less than 9% of plastics in the U.S. are recycled.

The order also directs the secretary of natural resources to come up with recommendations to reduce solid waste overall.

CBF was happy, Virginia to Phase Out Single-Use Plastics in State Government

“We are grateful to the governor for his leadership in the effort to rid our waterways of this bane by phasing out single-use plastics in government agencies and requiring a searching review of how to reduce the vast quantities of waste that currently goes to landfills. This executive order ensures that Virginia will be a leader in this effort.”

Frankly, I don't think it will do that much good. The state is only a small fraction of the trash stream, and one over which the state ought to be able to exert control over.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Oksana Rykova up on time and under budget at The Other McCain.

Fairfax County Explores Leaf Bag Ban

Renee Grebe. Conservation Blog, Fairfax County: Speak up to ban plastic yard waste bags!

On Tuesday, February 23rd at 4pm, Fairfax County will be holding a public hearing on the topic of prohibiting the use plastic bags for yard waste collection. Over the last year, the County has thoughtfully executed an education and outreach plan to communities and residents to make this transition as smooth as possible.

Currently, collected yard waste across the county goes to a composting facility. At the facility, the bags holding the yard waste, be they paper or plastic, all get shredded and mixed into the compost. Through this process, plastic makes its way into our soils, water supply, and eventually to us. But this ordinance amendment would prohibit the use of plastic bags, thus creating a safer and healthier compost product.

 

However, there is opposition to this change in that it could cause inconvenience and added costs to residents. Given the alternatives provided, this ordinance need not do either. The County has provided several alternatives ranging from mulching leaves and yard waste back into the soil, to using paper bags or reusable containers.

Although I've never had to use plastic bags to dispose of leaves, having an enormous back lot where we can dump all the leaves  we can stand to move off our lawn, I defend you right to do so, if that solution works for you.

If the counties machinery can't tell leaves from plastic, maybe they need to  improve the machinery. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Niece Waidhofer  up and running.

 

Safe At Last!

At least if you live or travel to Anne Arundel County: Anne Arundel County foam food container ban takes effect

The law was passed after concerns came up about plastic foam impacting the local environment.

"Well, they say a lot of the recyclable stuff they got now, they're not recycling. It's just piling up. So I guess that's just more stuff piling up. Every time you look around that's all you see," said Robert Wilson, a resident.

The ban includes single-use food-product containers like cups, plates, bowls or other products used for selling or serving food.

"It almost brings a tear to my eye because I really enjoy fishing when I get an opportunity to get out and do it," said Edward Mason, a resident.

I can't honestly say a foamed food or beverage container has ever detracted from my fishing experience.

Many people said the law is the right move to make in order to protect the environment, especially the Chesapeake Bay.

"I'm a fisherman of some type, and I've noticed how things have changed in the bay area over the years that I've been there, so I think it would be a good thing as far as the quality of the bay," Mason said.

The move comes after Annapolis put into effect a similar ban in September 2019. The new law in the county does not ban food or drinks placed in plastic foam containers outside of the county, but if restaurants in Anne Arundel County get caught using plastic foam containers, they could face fines ranging from $50 to $500.

I spend a lot of time walking the beach, and I rarely notice or encounter a foam container.

Having Solved All Their Bigger Problems . . .

Baltimore bans bags! Baltimore’s Bag Ban: What Will It Do? What’s Next?

Eight attempts at a Baltimore plastic bag ban have come and gone since 2006. Today, nine times proved to be the charm. This morning, Mayor Jack Young signed the Comprehensive Bag Reduction Bill into law. The signing drew dozens of advocates, city officials, press, and community members together.

In Baltimore, plastic bags are everywhere. They fly down our streets, get caught in trees, clog our storm drains and streams, and choke out plants and animals. They cause even more problems worldwide. That’s why Blue Water Baltimore championed this bill.

While plastic bags are just one source of trash, bans like this provide upstream solutions that protect our environment and help build toward a zero waste future. Baltimore now joins Montgomery County, Howard County, and other Maryland jurisdictions in banning plastic bags.

I know, two "Having solved all their bigger problem" posts in one day, but it seemed necessary.

What will the bag ban do? When does it start?

• Plastic bags will no longer be given out during checkout at grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations, and other stores.
• Instead, customers can either bring their own reusable bags or pay five cents for other bags like paper.
• One cent of the fee will go to the City and four cents will go to retailers to cover the costs of alternative bags.
• Some products are exempt from the bill, including meats, prescriptions, and newspapers.
• The bill goes into effect a year from today (January 13, 2021).

Now what? What’s next?

Today, Delegate Brooke Lierman of Baltimore is introducing a bill to ban plastic bags statewide during the 2020 legislative session.

Delegate Lierman’s proposed bill would also create a working group to research other single-use plastics, such as food utensils and water bottles.

A key part of the bill includes the creation of a working group. The group’s charter is to study the impact these types of plastic bans have on low-income Marylanders. Their findings will help guide policies that advance environmental justice and social equity.

Earlier versions of Baltimore City’s bag ban bill exempted SNAP and WIC users from the five cent fee; this would’ve taken the financial burden off those least able to afford it. Unfortunately, city council members removed the exemption. As Maryland considers a statewide ban on plastic bags this legislative session, environmental protection and equity must go hand-in-hand.

Baltimore’s leadership on banning plastic bags is a major victory: after the city banned polystyrene foam in 2018, a statewide ban in 2019 soon followed. Let’s hope that Baltimore’s leadership today leads to a statewide ban during the 2020 legislative session.

Meanwhile, no sign that the murder epidemic in Baltimore is abating 12 shot, five dead, in single day of shootings in Baltimore, and overdose deaths remain "staggeringly high" and continue to rise, not to mention, SEX AND YOUR CITY STD map ranks Baltimore as worst US city for sexually transmitted diseases

Annapolis and Baltimore Compete to Virtue Signal

Annapolis Styrofoam ban to begin in September

The prohibition on expanded polystyrene, or EPS, foam food service products is expected to begin in Annapolis.

These products, commonly referred to by the trademarked name Styrofoam, are prohibited for use and sale at food service businesses and grocery and convenience stores in the city of Annapolis as of Sept. 1.

Earlier this year, the city mailed letters to all food service businesses and grocers to begin using up the product in order to be in compliance. The grace period ran from Oct. 22, 2018, to Sept. 1. After Sept. 1, businesses using EPS foam for food service will be fined $100 for the first offense and $200 for subsequent violations.

But not to be out virtue signaled Baltimore bag ban would help kick plastic problem

We’re thrilled that the Baltimore City Council is considering a ban on single-use plastic bags. This legislation would reduce the use of plastic and shift consumer behavior toward reusable bags. Paper and compostable bags would still be available, but with a 5-cent surcharge proven effective to incentivize the use of reusables. Hundreds of cities and states across the country have passed similar measures, and some national chains and local businesses have voluntarily phased out or committed to phase out plastic bags and other single-use plastics. Baltimore has been a leader on reducing plastic pollution through our ban on foam food packaging, and now is the time to ban single-use plastic bags.

You might wonder how we could go on without something as ubiquitous in daily life as plastic bags, but it’s important to remember that we don’t need them. Plastic bags weren’t introduced in this country until the 1970s. We managed without them before, and we can manage again. And we should. Nothing we use for a few minutes should be able to pollute our communities for hundreds of years.

Even though plastic bag bans lead to greater sickness rates and death, due to bacterial contamination on the reusable bags.

It's not like Baltimore doesn't have bigger problems.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Katie Williams ready at The Other McCain.

Frederick County Floats a Plastics Ban

Frederick County could be next area to ban single-use plastic items

From bags to straws to carry out containers — could Frederick County be the next jurisdiction to ban single-use plastic items? One lawmaker there is opening discussions.

Some local officials have banned plastic straws. Others charge a small fee for plastic bags. Frederick County is now looking to catch up in the efforts to "go green."

"I am in favor of doing whatever works the most efficiently and effectively to reduce the amount of single-use plastics in circulation in our environment, especially with the growing concerns about microplastics and plastics in our environment, in our foodchain, even in our bodies," said Hagen.

Growing concern maybe, but a distinct dearth of actual evidence of harm

It's been predicted that by around 2050, plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish. Plastic bags are one of the biggest offenders.

Bjorn Lomburg, from yesterdays post, disputes that, claiming 70% of ocean going plastics come from commercial fishing gear, lines and nets.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation says it currently supports a bill in Baltimore that would ban the use of plastic bags and says it would support efforts to reduce single-use plastic litter that often ends up in the Bay as well as local rivers and streams.

Most shoppers FOX 5 stopped Fredrick Wednesday like the idea of being environmentally friendly, but some said it would take some getting used to.

Less than 5% of oceanic plastic trash come from OECD countries  Most of the plastic in the ocean is coming from a few countries in the far east. There's no doubt that the US could do better, but it's not the major contributor to the plastics issues, which is over rated as a problem in any event.

"I think that's an excellent idea. I live in Ellicott City and I see them all over the neighborhood, hanging in the trees," said one man.

Hagen says retailers could opt to use alternatives, like bags made from corn starch.

Once they have the research from the working group, Hagen is hoping to draft legislation in the fall.

Never mind that banning bags is worse for carbon pollution, if that's your worry. Virtue signaling is more important than results anyway.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Monday: Camila Cabello up and running.

Banning Bags Won't Save the Bay

Because Sorry, banning plastic bags won’t save our planet from Bjorn Lomborg

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a plan to reduce plastic pollution, which will include a ban on single-use plastics as early as 2021. This is laudable: plastics clog drains and cause floods, litter nature and kill animals and birds.

Of course, plastic also makes our lives better in a myriad of ways. In just four decades, plastic packaging has become ubiquitous because it keeps everything from cereals to juice fresher and reduces transportation losses, while one-use plastics in the medical sector have made syringes, pill bottles and diagnostic equipment more safe.

It's hard to overstate how reliant our society is on a steady supply of cheap plastic in a wide variety of types and applications.

Going without disposable plastic entirely would leave us worse off, so we need to tackle the problems without losing all of the benefits.

The simplest action for consumers is to ensure that plastic is collected and used, so a grocery bag, for example, has a second life as a trash bag, and is then used for energy.

But we need to be honest about how much consumers can achieve. As with other environmental issues, instead of tackling the big-picture problems to actually reduce the plastic load going into oceans, we focus on relatively minor changes involving consumers, meaning we only ever tinker at the margins.

Which is a common problem with environmental problem solving. Often the question is even turned backwards. "I don't like plastic bags, so let's find an excuse to ban plastic bags, however trivial."

More than 20 countries have taken the showy action of banning plastic bags, including even an al-Qaeda-backed terrorist group which said plastic bags pose “a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike.”

But even if every country banned plastic bags it would not make much of a difference, since plastic bags make up less than 0.8 per cent of the mass of plastic currently afloat on the world’s oceans.

Rather than trying to save the oceans with such bans in rich countries, we need to focus on tackling the inferior waste management and poor environmental policies in developing regions.

 I wonder how they compare to tampon applicators?

Research from 2015 shows that less than 5 per cent of land-based plastic waste going into the ocean comes from OECD countries, with half coming from just four countries: China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam. While China already in 2008 banned thin plastic bags and put a tax on thicker ones, it is estimated to contribute more than 27 per cent of all marine plastic pollution originating from land.

Moreover, banning plastic bags can have unexpected, inconvenient results. A new study shows California’s ban eliminates 40 million pounds of plastic annually. However, many banned bags would have been reused for trash, so consumption of trash bags went up by 12 million pounds, reducing the benefit. It also increased consumption of paper bags by twice the saved amount of plastic – 83 million pounds. This will lead to much larger emissions of CO₂.

 What? Unanticipated consequences? Whoda thunk?

When Kenya banned plastic bags, people predictably shifted to thicker bags made of synthetic fabric – which now may be banned. But Kenya had to relent and exempt plastics used to wrap fresh foods such as meat and other products.

We also need to consider the wider environmental impact of our bag choices. A 2018 study by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food looked not just at plastic waste, but also at climate-change damage, ozone depletion, human toxicity and other indicators. It found you must reuse an organic cotton shopping bag 20,000 times before it will have less environmental damage than a plastic bag. If we use the same shopping bag every single time we go to the store, twice every week, it will still take 191 years before the overall environmental effect of using the cotton bag is less than if we had just used plastic.

 Is that all?

Even a simple paper bag requires 43 reuses to be better for the environment – far beyond the point at which the bag will be fit for the purpose.

The study clearly shows that a simple plastic bag, reused as a trash bag, has the smallest environmental impact of any of the choices.

If we want to reduce the impact of plastic bags while still allowing for their efficient use, a tax seems like a much better idea. A 2002 levy in Ireland reduced plastic bag use from 328 bags a person per year to just 21 bags.

I urge New York and Massachusetts enact such a tax immediately!

And if we really want to make a meaningful impact on ocean plastics coming from land, we should focus on the biggest polluters such as China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam, and emphasize the most effective ways to cut the plastic load, namely better waste management in the developing world.

We should also recognize that more than 70 per cent of all plastics floating on oceans today – about 190,000 tonnes – come from fisheries, with buoys and lines making up the majority. That tells us clearly that concerted action is needed to clean up the fishing industry.

That's not my experience, but the Bay is a very different system.

If our goal is to get a cleaner ocean, we should by all means think about actions we can take as consumers in rich countries to reduce our use of unnecessary plastic bags. But we need to keep a sense of proportion and, if we’re serious, focus on change where it’s really needed.

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Even NPR questions, Are Plastic Bag Bans Garbage?

University of Sydney economist Rebecca Taylor started studying bag regulations because it seemed as though every time she moved for a new job — from Washington, D.C., to California to Australia — bag restrictions were implemented shortly after. "Yeah, these policies might be following me," she jokes. Taylor recently published a study of bag regulations in California. It's a classic tale of unintended consequences.

Before California banned plastic shopping bags statewide in late 2016, a wave of 139 California cities and counties implemented the policy themselves. Taylor and colleagues compared bag use in cities with bans with those without them. For six months, they spent weekends in grocery stores tallying the types of bags people carried out (she admits these weren't her wildest weekends). She also analyzed these stores' sales data.

 Ah yes, the life of a grad student. "Bright college days, oh carefree days that fly. To thee we sing, with our glasses raised on high (hic!)"

Taylor found these bag bans did what they were supposed to: People in the cities with the bans used fewer plastic bags, which led to about 40 million fewer pounds of plastic trash per year. But people who used to reuse their shopping bags for other purposes, like picking up dog poop or lining trash bins, still needed bags. "What I found was that sales of garbage bags actually skyrocketed after plastic grocery bags were banned," she says. This was particularly the case for small, 4-gallon bags, which saw a 120 percent increase in sales after bans went into effect.

Trash bags are thick and use more plastic than typical shopping bags. "So about 30 percent of the plastic that was eliminated by the ban comes back in the form of thicker garbage bags," Taylor says. On top of that, cities that banned plastic bags saw a surge in the use of paper bags, which she estimates resulted in about 80 million pounds of extra paper trash per year.

Plastic haters, it's time to brace yourselves. A bunch of studies find that paper bags are actually worse for the environment. They require cutting down and processing trees, which involves lots of water, toxic chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. While paper is biodegradable and avoids some of the problems of plastic, Taylor says, the huge increase of paper, together with the uptick in plastic trash bags, means banning plastic shopping bags increases greenhouse gas emissions. That said, these bans do reduce nonbiodegradable litter.

What about reusable cloth bags? We know die-hard public radio fans love them! They've got to be great, right? Nope. They can be even worse.

A 2011 study by the U.K. government found a person would have to reuse a cotton tote bag 131 times before it was better for climate change than using a plastic grocery bag once. The Danish government recently did a study that took into account environmental impacts beyond simply greenhouse gas emissions, including water use, damage to ecosystems and air pollution. These factors make cloth bags even worse. They estimate you would have to use an organic cotton bag 20,000 times more than a plastic grocery bag to make using it better for the environment.

That said, the Danish government's estimate doesn't take into account the effects of bags littering land and sea, where plastic is clearly the worst offender.

The most environment-friendly way to carry groceries is to use the same bag over and over again. According to the Danish study, the best reusable ones are made from polyester or plastics like polypropylene. Those still have to be used dozens and dozens of times to be greener than plastic grocery bags, which have the smallest carbon footprint for a single use.

As for bag policies, Taylor says a fee is smarter than a ban. She has a second paper showing a small fee for bags is just as effective as a ban when it comes to encouraging use of reusable bags. But a fee offers flexibility for people who reuse plastic bags for garbage disposal or dog walking.

Taylor believes the recent legislation passed in New York is a bad version of the policy. It bans only plastic bags and gives free rein to using paper ones (counties have the option to impose a 5-cent fee on them). Taylor is concerned this will drive up paper use. The best policy, Taylor says, imposes a fee on both paper and plastic bags and encourages reuse.

What could be more appropriate on Palm Sunday?

Plastic bag bans are virtue signalling by jurisdictions. Bag bans should be banned in the name of freedom, as should Straw Bans. Courtesy of Teach at Pirate's Cove, I see that my beloved Oregon has fallen for the Straw Ban: Having Solved All Of Oregon’s Problems, Senate Passes Bill Limiting Straws

Plastic pollution is not a joke. Even with the notion that the majority these days comes from China and India, each of us can do our part. It doesn’t have to be about ‘climate change’, or even extreme enviroweenieism. Seriously, do you like driving around, going for a walk, riding a bike, going to beach or the mountains or the park and seeing garbage, much of which is plastic? But, should Government be dictating choice?

Elle Johnson would give up her bikini before her straw

Oregon Senate passes bill limiting plastic straws

Oregon’s Senate passed a law Thursday to limit the use of plastic straws.
SB 90, approved by a 23-6 vote, would prohibit single-use plastic straws at restaurants unless a customer asks for one. Drive-thrus would still be able to hand out plastic straws.
In a press release, Oregon Democrats highlighted the environmental risks of plastic straws.
“We use a straw for less than an hour, but it continues to exist in nature for longer than our lifetime,” said state Sen. Michael Dembrow (D), who introduced the bill on the Senate floor.

“We can use a straw, throw it away and forget about it as an inconsequential part of our lives. But that straw can easily end up in the ocean or somewhere else in nature. There, a single straw can have significant and sometimes deadly impacts on animals. The viral video of a turtle having a straw painfully removed from its nostril provides clear evidence that our seemingly inconsequential acts have significant consequences for other creatures.”

Brooke gave up fishing, but not palms and straws

I’m not going to disagree with Dembrow’s assessment. This doesn’t have to be a political issue in terms of reducing plastic pollution. But, again, should government be passing laws like this? For one thing, there really is no enforcement mechanism. Does anyone think a cop will go in to get a burger and give a ticket when they are given a straw? Heck, most places do not hand you a straw, they have a big container with them. Something like this would be better as a resolution which asks places with straws to limit their use and replace them mostly with recyclables, paper straws, and recycle containers for plastic straws, many of which are stirrers for coffee.
Because, really, Oregon has a few more important issues, such as the quick rising homeless problem, used syringes all over the streets in cities like Portland, and rising crime.

And from Watt's Up With That: Climate Friendly Plastic Recycling is a Total Con

60 Minutes: Australia’s recycling industry now ‘mostly a con’ after China closes doors to plastic waste

By Sammi Taylor • 60 Minutes Digital Producer Apr 14, 2019

Most Australians think they’re doing the right thing when they take their recycling bins to the curb every fortnight.

But our belief that we’re doing our part for the environment is somewhat misguided: Australia’s plastic recycling industry is largely a con.

 “When you throw this stuff in your recycle bin at home you might like to think again,” Bartlett says.

Australia alone has dumped more than 71,000 tonnes of plastic in Malaysia in the past 12 months.

But there, the mountains of plastic waste can often end up in illegal processing facilities and junkyards.

It’s a big problem – and many players within the recycling industry are calling it for what it is: a load of rubbish.
…
Read more: https://www.9news.com.au/national/60-minutes-recycling-plastic-waste-australia-china-malaysia/9cb9fb9f-09ab-4c34-8be0-dcc7d996bcab

It's true in the United States too.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Aisha Tyler awaiting your digital pleasure.

Green Fail in Baltimore

Baltimore Scraps Its Waste-to-Energy Plan: Plans for an incinerator in South Baltimore have been halted, and the community could be better off that way.

A years-long, youth-led campaign to prevent the construction of a waste incinerator in the south Baltimore neighborhood of Curtis Bay has inched closer to victory.

Last week, the Maryland Department of the Environment alerted the New York-based company Energy Answers International that its permit to build an incinerator that would convert trash into energy is no longer valid. The proposed plant would generate 160 megawatts of electricity by burning an estimated 4,000 tons of solid waste per day. The facility would spread over 90 acres, making it the largest incinerator in the U.S. if built, according to the Environmental Integrity Project.

The incinerator would also sit just a stone’s throw from a number of schools and parks, not to mention hundreds of homes that are already in close proximity to a cluster of pollution-producing facilities. This is why students from those schools and their families have been protesting the construction of the waste-to-energy plant since Energy Answers began building it in August 2013. The Curtis Bay neighborhood already suffers the worst levels of air pollution in the state.

The map and chart below, created using the EPA’s EJ SCREEN mapping application, shows that the area within a mile of the proposed incinerator site registers extremely high levels of ozone and particulate matter emissions. Both of these air pollutants are responsible for asthma and respiratory disease-related deaths, especially among children and people of color. It may even play a role in increasing urban violence.

It is a rather nasty area in Baltimore. You can even smell it as you drive through. While I suspect that the added dangers due to this plant are being exaggerated, it is an area of the world that could be made better.

So what happens to the waste that would be incinerated? Likely it will get shipped out of Baltimore on a truck or ship and buried in some nice rural landfill, where it will provide a few jobs denied to the unemployed in Baltimore.