THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...

1

T H E V O I C E O F T H E P L A S T I C S I N D U S T RY I N T H E W E S T

W W W. W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S . O R G J U N E 2015

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E W E S T E R N P L A S T I C S A S S O C I AT I O NWPA TODAY

P R E S I D E N T ’ S V I E W :

WPA ANNUAL CONFERENCE—GREAT TECHNICAL INFORMATIONAND TIMELY TOPICSBY JOHN P ICC IU TO , WPA P R ES I D ENT.

The WPA Annual Conference is

coming up next week, June 23–25,

at the Hyatt in Newport Beach.

This will once again be an inform-

ative two-day event packed with

technical programs and industry

updates. We have worked hard

to present speakers who are well

respected nationally for their

insight on a wide range of issues.

Please take a moment to review

the agenda {see pages 2–5].

The first day, Tuesday, is brought

to you by Reifenhauser. This

technical day will cover applica-

tions for the flexible packaging

market including machinery and

material issues. Highlights in-

clude a panel discussion aimed

at putting these materials and

technology developments in the

context of the challenging busi-

ness environment producers and

their customers operate in.

Whatever your involvement is in

the flexible packaging industry,

be it production, maintenance,

converter or end-user, this event

will provide an ideal opportunity

to meet with like-minded profes-

sionals and find out about the

latest North American business

trends.

Reifenhäuser is a family-run

German company that has

developed into one of the most

renowned plastics machinery

manufacturers worldwide. Today

the company is managed by the

brothers Bernd, Klaus and Ulrich,

the 3rd generation of Reifen-

häusers who follow the tradition

of the founders in continuing

their pioneer work. Mr. Ulrich

Reifenhauser will be joining us

for this technical session day.

The issues forum day on Thurs-

day features speakers on new

materials and applications,

updates on what retailers and

consumer brand companies are

doing with recycling and sustain-

ability, and some business issues

that manufacturers need to know

about to continue to succeed in

their business ventures.

Tony Kingsbury kicks off Thurs-

day with a focus on what retail-

ers are doing nationwide with

their product suppliers. This will

be followed by a panel discussion

on recycling, post consumer

content, and certification

options. With a great deal of

emphasis being placed on PCR,

many manufacturer members

are concerned about where they

will source PCR, so this is a very

timely topic. Later in the day we

will also be getting an update on

plastic waste as an energy source

as well as what’s going on in

Canada, where EPR has become

the norm. Finally, CalRecycle will

present on their “Manufacturers

Challenge” – their initiative to get

brands and trade associations to

divert 50% of packaging waste

from the state’s landfills by 2020.

The entertainment on Wednesday

evening, a great change of pace

from our business meetings, will

feature Kelly Fitzgerald, a well-

regarded singer/songwriter.

I hope you plan to join us next

week for this exciting event. •

I N T H I S I S S U E :

President’s View 1

WPA Annual Conference 2

Member News 6

Recycling 11

Bag Bans 27

Marine Debris 31

Green 33

John Picciuto, President of the Western Plastics Association

Don’t Miss It!

WPA AnnualConference

June 23–25, 2015

CLICK HERE TO

REGISTER NOW >

https://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/eventReg?oeidk=a07eay7z5b1f27d2ce9&oseq=&c=1e957d30-b7d4-11e3-a2f8-d4ae527536ce&ch=1e9a3820-b7d4-11e3-a2f8-d4ae527536ce

http://www.westernplastics.org/

2015 ANNUAL WPA CONFERENCEHYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH

GET INFORMED, STAY CONNECTEDJoin your colleagues at the WPA for a two-day conference at the Hyatt Newport Beach, June 23–25

SCHEDULE

Tuesday, June 23, 2015: 5:30 p.m. Welcome Reception

Wednesday, June 24, 2015: Technology Day, brought to you by Reifenhäuser

Thursday, June 25, 2015: Business and Policy Forum

SPEAKERS

Alan Blake is the Executive Director at PACNEXT, an initiative of the Packaging Consortium (PAC) with a vision of A World without Packaging Waste and a passion for bringing industry together to find solutions that create value from packaging. He previously worked for Procter & Gamble on packaging design & development with a focus on their global innovation and packaging sustainability programs. Alan has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Sheffield, he’s a Fellow of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, a Chartered Engineer, a Distinguished Toastmaster and a fanatical Tottenham Hotspur fan.

Jim Hill is a Senior Recycling Specialist in Sacramento with CalRecycle, the agency that oversees California’s many statewide recycling and solid waste programs. He graduated with honors from the University of California, Irvine, then briefly attended the King Hall School of Law at UC Davis before deciding the world already has enough lawyers. After a period looking after disorderly college students andtheir apartments, Jim’s early career led him to research and policy positions at the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges and the State Council on Vocational Education. He settled into the recycling field in 1992.

Sandi Childs is leading APR’s efforts to expand PE bag and film recovery to supply the needs of APR’s members, and to educate con-sumers about the recyclability of film plastics. Prior to APR, Sandi worked for Coca-Cola Recycling as a Recovery Development Managerfor eight years. Sandi started her career recycling PET plastics, as Recycling Manager for Southeastern Container and then as Eastern Regional Director for NAPCOR. Sandi has a BS in Human Ecology from Ramapo College of New Jersey and a Masters in Environmental Science from UNC-Chapel Hill.

Rick Weil joined Mesirow Financial’s Investment Banking group in 2000 and has over 14 years of experience in the investment banking industry. He is responsible for business development activities as well as leading teams on middle market M&A transactions. He focuses exclusively on the plastics, packaging and specialty printing industries. Since joining the firm, Mr. Weil has been involved in over 80 M&A transactions in the rigid and flexible packaging, labels, folding cartons, specialty printing, tissue and corrugated packaging sectors. He serves family businesses, publicly traded corporations and private equity firms.

Terry Grill, Sealed Air Corporation: In her position as Director, Sustainability-Americas, Terry is responsible for the execution of global sustainability strategies to meet needs of all Sealed Air businesses and customers within North and Latin America while ensuring company-wide alignment of Sealed Air’s SmartLife™ approach to sustainability. Prior to this role, Terry had responsibility for NatureTRAY™ and NaturePAD™ products in addition to West Coast sales responsibility for Rigid Packaging and Absorbents. Terry has also held positions as Director, Sustainable Products Business Development at Sealed Air and Biosphere. Her experience prior to joining Sealed Air in 2006 includes President/CEO, Industrial Insulations Incorporated, as well as business development, sales management and technical sales positions in biotechnology and medical supply businesses.

Frank Ruiz received a BS in Chemistry from MIT in May 1976. He began his career in the polyolefins industry as a Film Product Develop-ment Engineer at the Union Carbide Bound Brook Technical Center in October 1979, studying blends of conventional LDPE and the newthe linear-low density polyethylene (LLDPE). Next, Frank coordinated the commercialization of Union Carbide’s film-grade hexene LLDPEcopolymers for blown and cast film applications. Frank joined Heritage Plastics in May 1986 and has helped them pioneer the use of calcium carbonate mineral reinforcement in polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene. This includes commodity and specialty blown films, molded articles, thermoformed sheet, and extrusion coating. He recently developed Heritage Plastic’s Minaflex™ technology for highly filled film and coating.

REGISTER BY EMAIL: [email protected] • BY PHONE 916.930.1938 • OR ONLINE HERE:

2

CLICK HERE TO

REGISTER NOW >


WPA CONFERENCE AGENDAHYATT REGENCY NEWPORT BEACH

TUESDAY, JUNE 23

6:00 p.m. Kick Off Reception – Pacific Room Patio

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 :: TECHNOLOGY DAY :: brought to you by

8 a.m. Networking Breakfast – Pacific Room Patio

9:00 a.m. Welcome, Introductions – Pacific Room

Ulrich Reifenhäuser

9:30 a.m. Blown Film Technology :: Session 1 :: Rethinking Technology

Sascha Skora, Reifenhäuser Blown Film

10:00 a.m. Cover Your Assets! An Inside Look at Roll Coverings, Electrodes & Corona

Tom Gilbertson, Enercon Industries

10:30 a.m. BREAK

11:00 a.m. The Changing Market – From Monolayer to Multilayer Co-extrusion

Dan Falla, NOVA Chemicals

11:30 a.m. Blown Film Technology :: Session 2 :: Upgrades and Specialty Systems

Manfred Kurscheid, Polyrema KG

12:00 p.m. NETWORKING LUNCH – Pacific Room Patio

1:00 p.m. Highly Efficient Reprocessing of In-house, Post-transit, and Agricultural Films

Bill Ginn, Erema

1:30 p.m. Cast, Sheet and Coating Technology

Lars Bergheim, Reifenhäuser Cast Sheet Coating

2:00 p.m. Insuring Your Blown Film Line Is Being Fed a Homogeneous Blend of Correct Materials

Carl Gillig, Syncro USA

2:30 p.m. BREAK

2:45 p.m. Simplifying Flexible Packaging Development

Dr. Rajen M. Patel, Dow Chemical

3:15 p.m. Screws and Barrels

George Jansen, Reiloy USA

4:00 p.m. Questions & Wrap-up Session

Steve DeSpain, Moderator

5:30 p.m. COCKTAIL RECEPTION – Garden Room Patio

6:30 p.m. DINNER/ENTERTAINMENT – Garden Room 1

KELLY FITZGERALD – GREAT SINGER AND SONGWRITER

Playing over 200 nights a year, singer/songwriter Kelly Fitzgerald has toured all over the world as a solo and ensemble performer. She and her band have shared stages with artists such as John Hiatt, Shelby Lynn, Nancy Griffith, Cheap Trick, Eddie Money, The Gin Blossoms, Vonda Shepard, The BoDeans and others.

3

THURSDAY, JUNE 25 :: BUSINESS AND POLICY FORUM

7:30 a.m. Breakfast – Pacific Room Patio

8:00 a.m. Greetings – Pacific Room

John Picciutto, WPA President

8:15 a.m. Transparency: What Your Supply Chain Will Be Asking to Know About Your Products

Tony Kingsbury, TKingsbury Consulting

9:00 a.m. Trends for Packaging – New Materials, Processes & Products

Erik Dunham, Senior Engineer, Technical Services and Development, Westlake

Frank Ruiz, Vice President, Heritage Plastics

Terry Grill, Director Sustainability–Americas, Sealed Air

10:15 a.m. BREAK

10:45 a.m. Shifting Strategies :: How Should the Flexible Packaging Industry Respond?

Customer Perspective – What Do THEY Want?

Michael Jobes, S. Walter Packaging

PCR Availability and Recycling Update – Where are We?

Cassandra Childs, Association of Post Consumer Plastic Recyclers (APR)

How Does PCR Perform, Certification Strategies

Professor Joe Greene, Cal State Chico

12:15 p.m. LUNCH – Mergers and Acquisitions Activity in the Specialty Plastics Industry

Rick Weil, Managing Director, Mesirow Financial

1:30 p.m. California Manufacturers Challenge: Can Brands Remove 50% of their Packaging

from the Waste Stream by 2020?

Jim Hill, CalRecycle

2:15 p.m. Redefining Energy Recovery

Kristi Galus, Dow Chemical

2:45 p.m. Canada – Impacts on the Lower 48

Alan Blake, Executive Director, PAC NEXT

3:15 p.m. Emerging Issues for Business Owners: Fraud in the Workplace

Tony Torres, Investigative Services Unit Leader, HUB International

Pamela Leitao, Orange County Deputy District Attorney

4:00 p.m. Wrap-Up

REGISTER BY EMAIL: [email protected] • BY PHONE 916.930.1938 • OR ONLINE HERE:

ANTITRUST STATEMENT

As participants in this meeting, we need to be mindful of the constraints of Antitrust laws. There shall be no discussions of agreements or concerted actions that may restrain competition. This prohibition includes the exchange of information concerning individual prices,rates, market practices, claims settlement practices, or any other competitive aspect of an individual company’s operation. Each participant is obligated to speak up immediately for the purpose of preventing any discussion falling outside these bounds.

4

CLICK HERE TO

REGISTER NOW >


6


M E M B E R P R E S S R E L E A S E :

SSE TEAM HELPS UTILIZE MONEYSAVING INCENTIVE PROGRAMSThe Ship & Shore Environmental

team plays a significant role in

the pre-approval of cash incen-

tives for several printing facility

projects.

We offer manufacturers not only

help with air quality issues, but

also with improving energy

efficiency. Millions of dollars have

been set aside for U.S. manufac-

turers to implement process

improvements that result in

reduced energy consumption.

Our process expertise and

energy managers know how

to cash-in on these incentive

programs by helping our manu-

facturing customers with the

incentive pre-approval process.

In fact, Ship & Shore Environ-

mental customers have received

hundreds of thousands of dollars

in cash incentives. Some exam-

ples of recent projects include:

1) A new flexographic packaging

operation serving the fresh fruit

and vegetable industry received

an incentive of more than

$100,000.

2) A Washington film extruder

and converter received $342,000

worth of incentives and won a

leadership-innovation award.

3) A coating operation received

an incentive of more than

$600,000.

Shields Bag and Printing Co. is

the Washington film extruder

and converter that Ship & Shore

Environmental was instrumental

in assisting with the incentive

pre-approval process for its

Yakima, WA facility expansion,

as reported by Plastics News. [To

read more, follow the link here.]

With the help of Ship & Shore

Environmental, it’s a cinch to

utilize government incentive

programs to expand or upgrade

manufacturing operations.

Utilizing various government pro-

grams that can help companies

boost performance and be more

competitive across diverse mar-

kets. Today’s emerging emphasis

on business expansion through

high-efficiency building and

equipment improvements is

driven by the availability of in-

centive programs that can signifi-

cantly decrease the upfront cost

of such improvements. The result

is an improved return on invest-

ment and increased motivation

to implement technology im-

provements. Consequently, gov-

ernment funding can help offset

the costs of boosting perform-

ance. U.S. business expansion is

the reason these programs exist.

As an engineering partner, Ship

& Shore Environmental provides

advice and technical support to

clients when air quality regula-

tions need to be addressed,

which may include meeting with

regulators. Next, as a solutions

partner we develop technical

solutions that will meet VOC

collection and abatement regula-

tions. Finally, through active par-

ticipation as a member of several

trade associations, we offer valu-

able experience and insight

regarding compliance issues.

Our goal is to help manufacturers

find reliable, energy-efficient

solutions to meet their unique

requirements.

Contact Ship & Shore Environ-

mental to arrange a free confi-

dential initial consultation by

phone 562.997.0233 or email:

[email protected].

We will listen to your concerns

and consider potential solutions

based on our experience and

your needs, which may include

air quality compliance review,

facility energy-efficiency assess-

ments, and recommendations.

WPA members qualify for a 50%

discount on energy-efficiency

assessments performed by Ship

& Shore Environmental. •

INCENT I V E P ROGRAMS CANS IGN I F ICANT LYDECREASE U P -F RONT COSTS OFIMPROVEMENTS .

http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20150309/NEWS/150309924/investment-helps-washington-film-converter-become-more-sustainable#email_pndaily

7



REIFENHAUSER INC TO GET A NEW HOMEIn November of 2014 Reifen-

hauser broke ground on our new

facility. Since that cold and windy

day, there has been continual

progress. The excitement is

building for all of us at Reifen-

hauser Inc and our sister com-

pany Reiloy Westland Corpor -

ation as we will be sharing this

new facility. Scheduled move

date is June 19.

Just Four Quick Facts on our new

building:

• will be 55,000 sq ft—nearly

doubling the amount of space

available in our current facility;

• is designed for efficient work

flow using lean manufacturing

methodology and 5S principals

—the result being improved

productivity;

• is just nine miles from our

present location; and

• features a safe room for

employees—for when those

infamous Kansas storms rage.

New Address

Our new address will be:

Reifenhauser Inc.

12260 W 53rd St. North

Maize, Kansas 67101

Our phone numbers and contact

details for everyone will remain

the same.

Below are some recent photos.•SCHEDU L ED MOVE DATE I S J UNE 19 .

8



NATUREWORKS ANNOUNCES NEWPARTNERSHIP WITH THE GREENSPORTS ALLIANCENatureWorks today announced

that it is strengthening its part-

nership with the Green Sports

Alliance to help support the

Alliance’s mission of advancing

environmental stewardship with

professional and collegiate

sports teams, venues, leagues,

and events. NatureWorks is a

global leader in supplying renew-

ably sourced materials including

its innovative Ingeo™ portfolio

of bio-based plastics. A compre-

hensive portfolio of compostable

food service ware products made

with Ingeo has seen steadily

increasing use by many of the

Alliance’s members.

The Green Sports Alliance is a

nonprofit organization that lever-

ages the market influence of

sports to promote healthy, sus-

tainable communities where

people live and play. The Alliance

represents nearly 300 sports

teams and venues from 20 differ-

ent sports leagues and 14 coun-

tries, including affiliates in

Australia, the UK and in the

European Union.

The partnership announced

today will offer Alliance members

enhanced access to NatureWorks

expertise in developing cost-

competitive waste diversion

programs through the use of

renewably sourced, low carbon

footprint products that offer new

options for recovery. The partner-

ship will also include educational

webinars, discussion panels,

supporting case studies, and

workshops on topics such as

bioplastics, composting, and

diversion success strategies

at sports venues and events.

NatureWorks has been associ-

ated with the Alliance almost

from its initial launch in 2011,

supporting the Alliance’s annual

Summit and helping to institute

successful organic waste diver-

sion programs with various

Alliance members including

the Portland Trail Blazers, the

Pittsburgh Pirates, and Xcel

Energy Center, the home of the

Minnesota Wild. The new part-

nership announced today is

designed to build on that history

and to accelerate broader imple-

mentation of organics diversion

in the sports industry.

“NatureWorks’ focus on promot-

ing composting is of enormous

ecological value, helping to

divert food waste from landfills,”

said Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, Green

Sports Alliance President who

previously served for 26 years

as Senior Scientist and Sports

Program Director at the Natural

Resources Defense Council

(NRDC). “With this new partner-

ship, the Alliance will build on

our ability to provide our mem-

bers with access to the latest

ecologically preferable technolo-

gies and renewably sourced

products.”

According to EPA data, in 2012

nearly 35 million tons of food

waste was generated in the

United States with 95 percent of

that going into landfills or incin-

erators. Compostable food serv-

ice ware such as cups, plates,

utensils, and to-go containers,

can facilitate composting of food

residuals, significantly reducing

the greenhouse gas emissions

which may otherwise result.

“The Green Sports Alliance is

premised on the compelling fact

that while only 13 percent of our

society follow science, 71 percent

follow sports,” said Marc Ver-

bruggen, NatureWorks CEO.

“Since its formation, the Alliance

has emerged as the most influen-

tial voice in the marketplace and

among NGOs leveraging the

enormous cultural influence of

sports to promote healthy and

sustainable communities. It is

hard to think of a more natural

partner in moving renewably

sourced performance materials

like ours to the mainstream of

society. This is a unique partner-

ship for NatureWorks.”

(Continued, see Green, page 9)

PARTNERSH I P W I L LHE L P ADVANCE THE S PORTS INDUST RY ’ S Z E RO WASTE IN I T I AT I V ES .

9


The 2015 Green Sports Alliance

Summit will be held June 29–

July 1 at McCormick Place,

Chicago, and the NatureWorks

International Global Users Forum

Innovation Takes Root will be

held March 30–April 1, 2016, at

the Orlando World Center Mar-

riott, in Orlando.

About the Green Sports Alliance

The Green Sports Alliance lever-

ages the cultural and market

influence of sports to promote

healthy, sustainable communi-

ties where we live and play.

We do so by inspiring sports

leagues, teams, venues, their

partners, and millions of fans

to embrace renewable energy,

healthy food, recycling, water

efficiency, species preservation,

safer chemicals, and other envi-

ronmentally preferable practices.

Alliance members represent

nearly 300 sports teams and

venues from 20 different sports

leagues and 14 countries. Find

out more at www.greensportsal-

liance.org.

About NatureWorks

NatureWorks LLC is a company

dedicated to meeting the world’s

needs today without compromis-

ing the earth’s ability to meet the

needs of tomorrow. Today, Nature

Works is a world leading biopoly-

mers supplier and innovator with

its Ingeo portfolio of naturally

advanced materials made from

renewable, abundant feedstocks

with performance and economics

that compete with oil-based

inter mediates, plastics, and

fibers, and provide brand owners

new cradle-to-cradle options

after the use of their products.

NatureWorks is jointly owned by

Thailand’s largest chemical pro-

ducer, PTT Global Chemical, and

Cargill, which provides food, agri-

culture, financial and industrial

products and services to the

world. For general information

on NatureWorks and Ingeo, visit

www.natureworksllc.com. •

NATUREWORKS S T R ENGTHENS GREEN PARTNERSH I P [CONT ’D ]

http://www.gloucesterengineering.com/

http://www.pcmc.com/

http://www.greensportsalliance.org/

10


http://www.erema.net/

11


R E C Y C L I N G :

FIVE INDICTED IN CRV RECYCLINGFRAUD SCHEME BY LANCE K LUG , CA L R ECYC L E

California’s Department of Re-

sources Recycling and Recovery

(CalRecycle) is announcing the

indictments of five Californians

on grand theft and recycling

fraud charges in Kern County.

CalRecycle and the California

Department of Justice’s Recycling

Fraud Team conducted an investi-

gation spanning nearly two years

that revealed a complex scheme

involving out-of-state used bev-

erage containers, 24 Southern

California recycling centers, and

$14 million worth of fraudulent

California Redemption Value

claims.

“Californians rightly expect us to

act aggressively to combat CRV

fraud,” CalRecycle Director Caroll

Mortensen said. “These indict-

ments send a clear message to

anyone who thinks they can

cheat the system by illegally

cashing in on out-of-state

containers through fraudulent

CRV redemptions.”

In September 2013, after a refer-

ral from CalRecycle, DOJ Recy-

cling Fraud Team investigators

observed Rodriguez Recycling of

Los Angeles County importing

used beverage containers from

Arizona. On April 16, 2014, DOJ

Recycling Fraud Team agents

traveled to Phoenix and wit-

nessed a semi-truck being

loaded with used beverage con-

tainers. The semi was followed

to a dirt lot in Bakersfield, where

the containers were off-loaded

into a U-Haul truck and onto a

53-foot trailer. A man later identi-

fied as Mario Mendoza of Bakers-

field then delivered two loads of

containers to Sequoia Resources

in Bakersfield. Mendoza was

arrested. With assistance from

CalRecycle, agents later learned

the loads were claimed in the

names of S&S Recycling, Ignacio

Recycling, and Gonzalez Recy-

cling, operated by James Gonza-

les of Bakersfield. CalRecycle

held and denied payment for

approximately $100,000 related

to these claims.

Evidence obtained through

search warrants showed Sequoia

Resources loaned more than

$20,000 a week to Gonzalez

Recycling with the expectation

that Gonzales would bring back

enough material to cover the cost

within three days. Agents also

determined that between

November 2013 and April 2014,

the center fronted roughly $1

million to Gonzales for the re-

demption of CRV containers. The

investigation ultimately deter-

mined that Gonzalo Rodriguez of

Piru (Ventura County) organized

the fraud scheme and relied on

his family to either directly oper-

ate or form associations with ap-

proximately 18 recycling centers

in Southern California. Those

centers redeemed an estimated

$14 million in fraudulent material

from the summer of 2012 to the

summer of 2014.

While the DOJ Recycling Fraud

Team was investigating Rodriguez,

CalRecycle conducted parallel

administrative investigations

and took actions on multiple

recycling centers related to the

criminal referral. As a result, Cal-

Recycle terminated the program

certifications of 20 recycling

centers, four others voluntarily

decertified from the program,

and CalRecycle denied payment

of $245,495 in handling fees.

On March 31, 2015, a Kern County

Grand Jury indicted Gonzalo

Rodriguez, James Gonzales,

Mario Mendoza and family mem-

bers Belen Gonzales of Piru and

Adriana Rodriguez of Sylmar. All

are in Kern County jail awaiting

trial on grand theft and recycling

fraud charges except Adriana

Rodriguez, who remains at large.

California’s Beverage Container

Recycling and Litter Reduction

Act incentivizes recycling through

a CRV fee paid by California con-

sumers at the time of purchase

and refunded upon return of the

(Continued, see Fraud, page 12)

OUT-OF - S TAT ECONTA INERS A R ENOT E L IG I B L EFOR CRV R EDEMPT ION.

12


CRV F RAUD IND ICTMENTS [CONT ’D ]

empty containers. Since the fee

is never paid by out-of-state con-

sumers, out-of-state containers

are not eligible for CRV redemp-

tion. CalRecycle aggressively

combats fraud through enhanced

training of recycling center own-

ers, increased scrutiny of pay-

ment claims, daily load limits,

and increased enforcement and

inspection efforts with coopera-

tion from California’s DOJ and

California Department of Food

and Agriculture border inspec-

tion station •Press release reprinted from Cal-

Recycle, www.calrecycle.ca.gov,

May 7, 2015.

IND IC TMENTSSEND A C L EARMESSAGE TO ANYONE WHOTH INKS THEY CAN CHEAT THE SYS T EM .

http://www.ngr.at

13


R E C Y C L I N G :

LAWSUIT F ILED AGAINST MAYORDE BLASIO AND DSNY OVER ILLEGAL FOAM BAN BY SARAH GOULD , DART CONTA INER CORP.

Dart Container Corporation

joined with the Restaurant Action

Alliance NYC, members of the

recycling industry, and the City’s

restaurant owners today in filing

a lawsuit seeking to overturn the

City’s irrational ban on foam

foodservice items. Mayor Bill de

Blasio, the New York City Depart-

ment of Sanitation, and DSNY

Commissioner Kathryn Garcia are

named as respondents in the

petition, which was filed against

the Commissioner’s erroneous

determination that foam cannot

be recycled. The determination

flagrantly violated Local Law 142

as well as sound environmental

and economic policy and plain

common sense.

The suit, which was filed in New

York Supreme Court, called the

decision to ban foam “arbitrary

and capricious,” and asked the

Court to reverse the Commis-

sioner’s determination that foam

is not recyclable and order DSNY

to implement rules to recycle

foam.

“We put together a plan that

even the City’s recycler sup-

ported that would have removed

all polystyrene foam, and not just

foodservice articles, from the

City’s waste stream. Our plan

represented sound environmen-

tal policy, but they opted for a

politically expedient ban,” said

Michael Westerfield, Dart’s

Director of Recycling. “The City

Council set forth very specific

criteria for the DSNY to evaluate,

and we met or exceeded every

one. What we didn’t know is that

City Hall had a hidden agenda

that would not be swayed by

facts or common sense. We are

taking a stand today to protect

the thousands of businesses that

will suffer if this ban is allowed to

stand, as well as manufacturers

and recyclers who oppose this

ban.”

Based on the evidence presented

to the Department of Sanitation

over the last year, the Commis-

sioner is statutorily required to

recycle EPS, not ban it. Outlined

specifically in the complaint are

a multitude of incontrovertible

facts:

a) The Commissioner’s determi-

nation was rendered “without a

sound basis in reason and gener-

ally without regard to the facts.”

The Commissioner’s findings

regarding economic feasibility

and environmental effectiveness

are rife with factual errors, false

assumptions, material omissions

and misrepresentations. The de-

termination was made even after

a top aide to the Commissioner

let it be known that the Commis-

sioner’s research confirmed foam

can be recycled curbside and

sorted at the City’s sorting

facilities.

b) Market demand for recycled

EPS is so “robust” that a single

buyer, Plastics Recycling Inc.

(PRI), readily committed to pur-

chase all of New York City’s recy-

clable polystyrene (both solid

and foam), with a right of first

refusal over other buyers. PRI fur-

ther assured the Commissioner

that it already has “enough de-

mand to handle a 100% recycling

rate for a city five times the size

of NYC.” PRI even provided the

Commissioner with a list of buyers.

In short, the economic feasibility

of this recycling plan is beyond

dispute. Despite those facts, the

Commissioner continues to re-

peat the false premise that there

are “no economic markets in

existence” that would purchase

and recycle the City’s EPS.

c) Since 2013, the City has col-

lected solid polystyrene for recy-

cling, but has sent all 25,000

tons of it to landfills. Dart and

PRI committed to recycling not

just the City’s foam foodservice

items, but all foam polystyrene

(e.g. meat trays, egg cartons, ice

chests, and protective packaging

foam often used for TVs and

other electronics) plus solid poly-

styrene. In April, 2013, Mayor

Bloomberg announced that the

City would begin collecting solid

polystyrene products as part of

the City’s commingled recycled

(Continued, see Mayor, page 14)

C I T Y HA L L HAD AH IDDEN AGENDATHAT WOULDNOT B E SWAYEDBY FACTS ORC O M M O NSENSE .

14


program. However, there were no

plans to actually recycle the solid

polystyrene. Mayor de Blasio has

continued the practice of sending

tens of thousands of tons of solid

polystyrene into landfills.

d) The final determination was

not made by the Sanitation Com-

missioner following an objective

review, as local law required.

Rather, it was imposed on the

Department of Sanitation by

City Hall to further the political

agenda of Mayor de Blasio, who

vowed to ban foam during his

mayoral run. By declaring his in-

tention to “ban Styrofoam in city

government, then try to get it out

of our society writ large,” the

Mayor flouted Local Law 142’s

directive that the Commissioner

alone make this recycling deter-

mination.

e) In late 2014, at the Commis-

sioner’s behest, Dart, PRI and the

City’s recycling contractor struck

a deal in principle to recycle all

of New York City’s polystyrene.

At an October 2014 meeting,

the Commissioner expressed a

desire to move forward with the

proposed recycling plan. Yet, in

January 2015, at the Mayor’s

direction, the Commissioner is-

sued a sham determination, ban-

ning foam foodservice products

and relegating the rest of the

City’s polystyrene to landfills.

It was the Mayor’s Office that

instructed the Commissioner to

issue a negative determination.

“At the end of the day, this ban

will only cost me more money

and hurt my business and my

family,” said Astrid Portillo,

owner of Mi Pequeno El Salvador.

“Commissioner Garcia ignored

the facts and our pleas for fair-

ness before, but she will not be

able to ignore us this time.

Despite his slick slogans, the

Mayor has forgotten we are part

of OneNYC, too.”

As stated in the complaint, the

Coalition, Dart Container and

other named petitioners in the

suit have asked for the Court to

lift the ban on foam and require

the Department of Sanitation

to recycle it.

For more information, please

contact Sarah Gould at

914.589.4487. To view the Coali-

tion’s Executive Summary of the

legal challenge, click here. •Press release reprinted Dart

Container Corp., April 30, 2015.

L AWSU I T AGA INST NYC MAYOR [CONT ’D ]

Tier One Resin Distributor for the Americas and Beyond.

Some customers believe it’s a feat of superhuman strength when companies stand by their word for price, delivery and service. We like to think that integrity is injection molded into our DNA.

Whatever your needs. We’ll make it happen.

Osterman-co.com • [email protected] • 800.914.4437

Visit Osterman Market Intelligence (OMI) on our website for cutting edge Intel on the resin industry all in one place - www.osterman-co.com/omi

http://www.osterman-co.com/

15


R E C Y C L I N G :

ALPINE WASTE & RECYCLING TORECYCLE FOAM IN THE DENVERMETRO AREA BY FOODSERV ICE PACKAG ING INST I TU T E

Many residents and commercial

companies in the Denver Metro

area will soon be able to add

polystyrene foam foodservice

packaging, egg cartons, meat

trays and protective packaging

to their recycling bins, thanks to

a $45,000 grant from the Foam

Recycling Coalition.

Alpine Waste & Recycling of

Commerce City, Colo., is the first

recipient of the recently launched

North American funding program

designed to increase the collec-

tion, processing, and marketing

of post-consumer polystyrene

foam. Alpine will use the grant

money to purchase equipment

that compacts (densifies) poly-

styrene foam into bricks, making

Alpine the first company in Denver

to provide foam recycling services.

Alpine is the largest independ-

ent, privately held waste and

recycling company in Colorado.

It is vertically integrated with a

fleet of more than 80 collection

vehicles and 220 employees;

plus a recycling facility (the

second largest in the state);

composting collection and

operations; and a landfill.

“Out of the dozens of applica-

tions from the U.S. and Canada,

we were particularly impressed

with Alpine’s thoughtfulness and

plans for the future,” said Lynn

Dyer, president of the Foodser-

vice Packaging Institute, which

houses the coalition. “Alpine

recognized the value and benefit

of adding polystyrene foam to

their already successful recycling

program.”

“Alpine Waste & Recycling prides

itself on its culture of innovation,

and this opportunity to recycle

foam foodservice and protective

packaging is certainly an indus-

try-leading moment,” said Brent

Hildebrand, vice president-recy-

cling for Alpine. “It allows us to

respond decisively to the wishes

of consumers who have long

sought an opportunity to recycle

this material.”

Hildebrand said Alpine will work

immediately on a structure of

operations that will encourage

companies and organizations in

the Denver area to provide foam

to the Altogether Recycling Plant,

a division of Alpine.

The grant is made possible

through contributions to the

Foam Recycling Coalition, which

focuses exclusively on increased

recycling of post-consumer

polystyrene foam. Its members

include Americas Styrenics;

Cascades Canada ULC; CKF Inc.;

Chick-fil-A; Commodore; Conver-

mex; D&W Fine Pack; Dart Con-

tainer Corp.; Dolco Packaging,

A Tekni-Plex Company; Dyne-A-

Pak; Genpak; Hawaii Foam Prod-

ucts; NOVA Chemicals Corp.;

Pactiv Foodservice/Food Packag-

ing; Shell Chemical LP; Styrolu-

tion America; and TOTAL

Petrochemicals & Refining USA.

Additional support of the coali-

tion comes from the EPS Industry

Alliance.

The coalition will continue to

offer grants that promote foam

recycling in residential curbside,

drop-off and commercial pro-

grams. Additional grant recipi-

ents will be announced later this

spring. More information about

foam recycling is available at

www.fpi.org/recyclefoam.

ABOUT FPI:

Founded in 1933, the Foodservice

Packaging Institute (FPI) is the

leading authority for the North

American foodservice packaging

industry. FPI encourages the re-

sponsible use of all foodservice

packaging through promotion of

its benefits and members’ prod-

ucts. Serving as the voice of the

industry to educate and influ-

ence stakeholders, FPI provides

a legal forum to address the

challenges and opportunities

facing the foodservice packaging

industry. Members include food-

service packaging manufacturers

(Continued, see Denver, page 16)

THE GRANT I SMADE POSS I B L ETHROUGH CONTR I BU T IONSTO THE FOAM R ECYC L INGCOAL I T ION .

16


and their raw material and ma-

chinery suppliers, restaurants,

grocery and convenience stores,

distributors and nearly 50 school

districts, colleges and universi-

ties. Learn more at www.fpi.org.

ABOUT FRC:

The Foam Recycling Coalition

(FRC) was formed under the

Foodservice Packaging Institute

in 2014 to support increased

recycling of foodservice packag-

ing made from polystyrene foam.

FRC shares general information

on foam recycling, provides tech-

nical resources and offers fund-

ing assistance to programs ready

to start or strengthen post-con-

sumer foam recycling. Members

include stakeholders from

throughout the foodservice pack-

aging value chain. Learn more at

www.fpi.org/stewardship. •Press release reprinted from

Foodservice Packaging Institute,

May 14, 2015.

DENVER MET RO FOAM R ECYC L ING [CONT ’D ]

R E C Y C L I N G :

AF&PA ANNOUNCES 2014 PAPER RECOVERY RATE BY KATHAR INE EATON, AMER ICAN FORES T & PA P E R ASSOC IAT ION

The American Forest & Paper

Association (AF&PA) today

announced that 65.4 percent of

paper consumed in the U.S. was

recovered for recycling in 2014.

U.S. paper recovery rate statis-

tics are available at www.paper-

recycles.org/statistics.

“U.S. paper recovery’s ongoing

success is possible thanks to the

voluntary, market-driven product

recovery system,” said AF&PA

President/CEO Donna Harman.

“Industry education programs

and initiatives, and the millions

of Americans who recycle every

day help ensure continuously

high paper recovery rates,” said

AF&PA Board Chairman and

Sappi North America President

and CEO Mark Gardner.

The annual paper recovery rate

has nearly doubled since 1990

and the industry has set a goal

to exceed 70 percent paper

recovery by 2020 as part of

its Better Practices, Better

Planet 2020 sustainability initia-

tive. Paper recovery for recycling

helps extend the useful life of

paper and paper-based packag-

ing products, making it an inte-

gral part of the industry’s

sustainability story.

For more information about

paper recycling and AF&PA’s

commitment to sustainability,

visit www.paperrecycles.org.

ABOUT AF&PA

The American Forest & Paper

Association (AF&PA) serves to

advance a sustainable U.S. pulp,

paper, packaging, and wood

products manufacturing industry

through fact-based public policy

and marketplace advocacy.

AF&PA member companies make

products essential for everyday

life from renewable and recycla-

ble resources and are committed

to continuous improvement

through the industry’s sustain-

ability initiative—Better Prac-

tices, Better Planet 2020.

The forest products industry

accounts for approximately

4 percent of the total U.S. manu-

facturing GDP, manufactures

over $200 billion in products

annually, and employs approxi-

mately 900,000 men and

women. The industry meets a

payroll of approximately $50

billion annually and is among

the top 10 manufacturing sector

employers in 47 states. Visit

AF&PA online at www.afandpa.

org or follow us on Twitter

@ForestandPaper. •Reprinted from afandpa.org,

May 12, 2015.

http://www.afandpa.org/

17


R E C Y C L I N G :

HOW2RECYCLE ANNUAL REPORTIS NOW AVAILABLEBY DAN I E L L E P EACOCK , SUS TA INAB L E PACKAG ING COA L I T ION

How2Recycle has come a long

way, and we have the document

to prove it.

A few highlights from 2014:

• 41% increase in membership,

exceeding our 2014 goal

• New web-based brand asset

management tool to automate

artwork delivery

• Collected over 1,100 survey

responses from consumers

since project launch

Our hopes for 2015:

• To reach our goal of 50 member

companies

• Redesign our website to better

serve members and the general

public interested in learning

more about recycling

•To facilitate a study of data

collection methodologies to

ensure clear and complete data

collection

To learn more about GreenBlue’s

How2Recycle program visit our

website [click here], or follow us

on Twitter for the latest news.

We are excited for the future and

hope to see many more brands

using the How2Recycle Label in

2015.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The How2Recycle Label is a

voluntary, standardized labeling

system that clearly communi-

cates recycling instructions to

the public. Variation in recycling

programs, unclear labeling, and

inaccurate recyclability claims

make proper recycling a chal-

lenge. The How2Recycle Label

was created to provide consis-

tent and transparent on-package

recycling information to the

public.

The goals of How2Recycle are to:

• Reduce confusion by creating a

clear, well-understood, and na-

tionally harmonized label that

enables industry to convey to

consumers how to recycle a

package

• Improve the reliability, com-

pleteness, and transparency of

recyclability claims

• Provide a labeling system that

follows Federal Trade Commis-

sion Green Guides

• Increase the availability and

quality of recycled material

The How2Recycle Label is a proj-

ect of GreenBlue’s Sustainable

Packaging Coalition (SPC).

GreenBlue hopes to improve the

ease of recycling through uni-

form and accurate on-package

claims. GreenBlue also provides

companies with instant recycla-

bility assessments through

delivery of How2Recycle artwork

and claims.

In 2014, How2Recycle surpassed

its goal of 35 member compa-

nies, with a total of 39 members

by the release of this report.

How2Recycle also automated

its artwork delivery system, con-

tinued collaborating with stake-

holder groups, released the 2014

guidance document, assisted

companies in scaling up their

adoption of How2Recycle, and

saw ongoing positive trends in

survey responses and feedback.

The report outlines the How2Re-

cycle Label membership, back-

ground and development, key

program attributes, consumer

feedback, and goals. •[View the full report here.]

Press release reprinted from the

Sustainable Packaging Coalition.

HOW2RECYC L EINCREASED MEMBERSH I P IN2014 BY 41% .

http://www.how2recycle.info

http://www.how2recycle.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/How2RecycleAnnualReport2014_FinalDraft.pdf

18


R E C Y C L I N G :

PROCTER & GAMBLE JOINS NATIONAL EFFORT TO RECYCLEFLEXIBLE PLASTIC WRAPS, BAGSBY A L LY SON WI L SON, AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L

ACC is pleased to announce that

the Procter & Gamble Co. has

joined the Flexible Film Recycling

Group (FFRG), a self-funded

group that is driving unprece-

dented growth in the recovery

of flexible polyethylene (PE) film,

wraps and bags.

“Optimizing and recovering pack-

aging is a key part of our sustain-

ability mission at P&G,” said

Stephen Sikra, P&G Research

and Development Manager. “Our

aim is to reduce our environmen-

tal footprint as a company and

that of the consumers who

choose our products. Working

with the FFRG and our value

chain partners to expand film

collection and recycling is a

focused priority as we work

toward that goal.”

“We’re extremely pleased to be

working with P&G,” said Shari

Jackson, director of FFRG.

“National efforts to educate

consumers about the recyclabil-

ity of bags and wraps are already

paying off, and having P&G on

board will help extend our reach

even further.”

The recycling of postconsumer

plastic film surged 116 million

pounds, or 11 percent, in 2013

to reach a reported 1.14 billion

pounds, according to a recent

national report. This marks the

highest annual collection of plas-

tic film—a category that includes

product wraps, bags and com-

mercial stretch film made prima-

rily from PE for recycling, since

the survey began in 2005.

Through its partnership initia-

tives, FFRG has supported the

Sustainable Packaging Coali-

tion’s (SPC) “store drop-off”

label for plastic film packaging

and helped to establish film recy-

cling pilot programs around the

country. In addition, FFRG is part-

nering with SPC and the Associa-

tion of Postconsumer Plastic

Recyclers on the Wrap Action

Recycling Program, or WRAP,

which makes it easier for state

and municipal governments,

brands and retailers to increase

awareness of opportunities to

recycle used PE wraps at local

stores.

Founding members of the Flexi-

ble Film Recycling Group include

Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil,

Chevron Phillips, Berry Plastics,

Wisconsin Film and Bag, Sealed

Air Corporation, SC Johnson,

Avangard and Trex. •Press release reprinted from

American Chemistry Council,

www.americanchemistry.com,

April 8, 2015.

POSTCONSUMERP LAS T IC F I LM R ECYC L INGSURGED 116 M I L L ION POUNDSIN 2013 .

19


R E C Y C L I N G :

VIDEO ENCOURAGES ADOPTIONOF COMMON TERMS TO HELPBOOST PLASTICS RECYCLINGBY A L LY SON WI L SON, AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L

A new animated video released

today encourages recycling

professionals and communities

nationwide to adopt a uniform

set of terms to better communi-

cate with residents about what

plastics to recycle. The video

builds on last year’s introduc-

tion of the Plastics Recycling

Terms & Tools, a set of resources

designed to help communities

recycle more plastics by using

simple, consistent terms and

images to educate people.

The 3-minute video uses the

“whiteboard” animation style

made popular by sports net-

works, game makers, and others,

in which an artist seemingly

draws time-lapse images to tell a

story. In this case, the video

shows how using the Terms &

Tools can help get everybody

“singing from the same song-

book” to reduce confusion and

increase plastics recycling.

[View the video online here.]

“This video is an entertaining

way to communicate how all of

us working together using the

same set of terms can help grow

plastics recycling,” said Craig

Cookson, director of sustainabil-

ity and recycling for the Plastics

Division of the American Chem-

istry Council, which produced the

video. “The video is brief, engag-

ing, and kind of humorous—it

effectively delivers the message

that using the Terms & Tools is

in everybody’s interest.”

The Terms & Tools provides a

glossary of terms, a gallery of

images, an option to create your

own flyer, and an easy-to-use on-

line tool that helps communities

streamline the process of match-

ing the plastics collected in a par-

ticular program with a common

set of outreach terms. All Terms

& Tools resources are available

at no cost online at RecycleYour-

Plastics.org.

“We are excited to share this new

video with recycling coordinators

and plastic recycling profession-

als,” said Patty Moore, president

and CEO of Moore Recycling

Associates. “Broad adoption of

common terms will reduce confu-

sion, increase plastic recycling,

and boost the quality of recycled

plastics—all of which will

improve the entire plastic

recycling system.”

The Terms & Tools were created

with guidance from a wide-rang-

ing advisory committee of repre-

sentatives from throughout the

plastics recycling value chain,

including reclaimers, recycling

coordinators, plastics makers,

trade associations, municipal

recovery facilities, a recycling

company, an exporter, and a non-

profit recycling partnership. In

addition, Moore Recycling Asso-

ciates solicited input through

an extensive survey of hundreds

of recycling professionals and

through Re-TRAC Connect.

Moore Recycling Associates

continues to oversee the Terms

& Tools, sponsored by the

Plastics Division of the American

Chemistry Council. •Press release reprinted from


www.americanchemistry.com,

May 11 2015.

THE V I D EOBU I LDS ON A S E TOF R ESOURCESDES IGNED TOHE L P COMMUN I -T I E S R ECYC L EMORE P LAS T ICS .

http://youtu.be/zbcVQ2_8UU4

20


R E C Y C L I N G :

RECYCLING PEANUTS ANDCRACKER JACKBY K EN BE L SON, NEW YORK T IMES

For years, sports fans have been

told to put their glass bottles and

aluminum cans in recycling bins

at arenas and stadiums.

Now, a growing number of teams,

eager to cut costs, are asking

them to toss their food and

biodegradable cutlery, trays and

cups in separate bins, too.

Teams including the Seattle

Mariners, Pittsburgh Pirates and

Portland Trail Blazers, and events

like the United States Open are

embracing composting because

it can reduce expensive fees to

send trash to landfills and incin-

erators. Composting avoids

producing tons of greenhouse

gases like methane and instead

produces tons of mulch that can

be used as fertilizer.

“This was a little bit of a no-

brainer because it probably

made the biggest impact to the

public,” said Jim Ibister, the vice

president for administration

of the Minnesota Wild of the

National Hockey League and

general manager of the St. Paul

RiverCentre, the convention

center next to the Xcel Energy

Center, where the team plays.

“We’re a hospitality industry, and

we create a lot of food waste and

paper products, and that would

have all gone in the trash.”

Arena and stadium operators

have focused for years on recy-

cling glass, metal and cardboard,

some of which could be sold,

even though food and utensils,

cups and the like—which the

industry calls serviceware—

made up a greater share of their

waste and created other head-

aches, like vermin.

Cooks in stadium kitchens have

composted for years, but teams

did not expand into general seat-

ing areas because they did not

want to ask fans to put leftover

hot dogs, peanuts and pretzels

in one bin and plastic cups and

cutlery in another.

As the price of compostable

forks, knives, spoons, plates,

trays and cups has fallen, teams

have been able to expand com-

posting throughout their venues

because biodegradable service-

ware allows fans to throw every-

thing in one can.

Many of these compostable

products are made with Ingeo,

a corn starch-based material

developed by NatureWorks,

which, like plastic, is strong and

lightweight, but can be com-

posted with food scraps. Though

still more expensive than stan-

dard products, their higher

costs were offset by a reduction

in landfill hauling fees, Mr. Ibister

and other venue operators said.

Steve Davies, the director of pub-

lic affairs at NatureWorks, said

sports venues were good places

to compost because building

operators can control which

products are used, and that

reduces the amount of noncom-

postable items that must be

removed from the compost.

“While there are challenges,

sports venues are one of the

easiest places to effect change

because the venue completely

controls what comes into the

building,” Mr. Davies said. “It’s a

closed loop.”

Expanding composting to general

seating areas, though, presents

challenges: Stadium and arena

operators must find a large,

regular supply of compostable

paper goods; extra bins must be

bought and labeled so fans know

what to discard and where;

storage space is needed for the

compost and a composter typi-

cally must be hired to haul away

the waste to be processed.

Finding an affordable composter

that can haul tons of waste can

be difficult. About 96 percent of

all food waste in the United States,

or about 100 billion pounds a

year, is dumped in landfills or

incinerated, according to Alice

Henly, the director of programs

at the Green Sports Alliance.

(Continued, see Stadium, page 21)

T EAMS HAVEBEEN AB L E TO E X PAND COMPOST INGTHROUGHOUTTHE I R V ENUES .

21


“The main constraint is finding

composting facilities in easy ac-

cess to their facilities,” she said.

Teams and venue operators like

Mr. Ibister say it is worth the

trouble.

Because of an aggressive

program of recycling and com-

posting, the amount of trash

collected at the arena and con-

vention center in St. Paul that

has been sent to landfills or

incinerators since 2008 has

declined by 60 percent, or by

725 tons, a year.

The Wild are following in the

footsteps of the Mariners in

Seattle. Just over half of the

team’s waste is organic, and

through an aggressive compost-

ing program that began in 2006,

it has saved $95,000 a year in

landfill hauling costs.

AgRecycle, a commercial com-

poster hired by the Pittsburgh

Pirates, makes compost that the

Pirates use to make youth base-

ball fields. The Pirates also col-

lect grass clippings and the clay

used for warning tracks for com-

posting, said Carla Castagnero,

AgRecycle’s president. Most

teams, though, simply pay com-

posters to haul away their food

and biodegradable serviceware.

But at least one stadium opera-

tor is composting on its own.

Last fall, the operator of MetLife

Stadium, the home of the New

York Jets and Giants, bought a

composter and mixing unit,

which were first placed near a

loading dock, then moved to a

more central location at the 750-

acre sports complex in East

Rutherford, N.J. After events at

the stadium, which seats more

than 80,000, workers throw all

food and compostable service-

ware into a vessel and add

carbon-rich material like card-

board and paper to thicken

the soupy mix.

After about eight weeks in the

composter, the processed mulch

is removed from the vessel and

piled up until it is ready to be

used as mulch at the facility.

“When you give your material

to a recycler, you rely on them to

do the right thing,” said David

Duernberger, the vice president

for facility operations at MetLife

Stadium. “With us, we have

complete control over the

process.” •Reprinted from New York Times,

www.nytimes.com, April 22 2015.

S TAD IUM COMPOST ING IN I T I AT I V E S [CONT ’D ]

T EAM AND VENUEOPERATORS SAY I T I S W O RTH THE T ROUB L E .

http://www.alsplastics.com/

22


R E C Y C L I N G :

GOOD GUIDANCE ON RECYCLINGBAGS WHEN CURBSIDE ISN’TWORKINGBY SAND I CH I LDS , ASSOC. POSTCONSUMER P LAS T ICS R ECYC L E RS

In case you missed it, Bowie

Maryland, a suburb of Washing-

ton, DC with a population of just

over 56,000, announced that

their curbside recycling program

would no longer be accepting

plastic bags. In a piece May 28,

2014 in the Maryland Gazette,

the city explained that bags can

damage recycling equipment and

often blow out of curbside bins,

which residents—who are trying

to do the right thing—often don’t

know. But what was striking, and

ultimately encouraging, about

Bowie’s announcement was that

they didn’t leave it at that. Solid

Waste Superintendent Melvin

Thompson went on to provide

residents with a solution. He

urged the citizens of Bowie to

utilize their plastic bag take-back

network, provided by retail

stores, and directed them to the

zip-code locator at www.plastic-

filmrecycling.org to find a nearby

store to drop-off their bags.

Places like Lowe’s, Walmart,

Target, Kroger and many other

retailers have recycling bins at

the front of the store to collect

these polyethylene (PE) plastic

bags. Even better, not only can

residents recycle grocery bags,

but also can include additional

PE film packages such as bread

bags, produce bags, dry cleaning

bags, newspaper bags, as well

as product overwraps around

diapers, paper towels and bath-

room tissue. We commend Bowie

for providing residents with

solutions-oriented information.

By participating in retail recy-

cling, residents supply recyclers

with valuable material. According

to a recent report by Moore Recy-

cling, the recycling of postcon-

sumer plastic film packaging

surged 116 million pounds, or

11 percent, in 2013 to reach a

reported 1.14 billion pounds. In

fact, there’s been a 74% increase

in polyethylene film recycling

since 2005, when industry first

began collecting the data.

This type of plastic goes in to

a range of products including

durable composite lumber for

outdoor decks and fencing, home

building products, lawn and gar-

den products, crates, pipe, and

film for new plastic packaging.

Steering residents to the retail

network for plastic film collection

is a great way to explain to

residents that film plastics are

equally recyclable as any mate-

rial in their curbside bin. And,

recycling these valuable products

is as easy as a trip to your

grocery store. There are more

than 18,000 drop off bins across

the country, and with national

chain retail participation, there is

almost always a drop-off location

nearby. Bowie’s announcement

solves their problem, without

putting a dent in recovery efforts.

That’s a message we’d love to

see more municipalities

“recycle.”

ABOUT SANDI CHILDS

Sandi Childs is leading APR’s ef-

forts to expand PE bag and film

recovery to supply the needs of

APR’s members, and to educate

consumers about the recyclabil-

ity of film plastics. Prior to APR,

Sandi worked for Coca-Cola

Recycling as a Recovery Develop-

ment Manager for eight years.

Sandi started her career recy-

cling PET plastics, as Recycling

Manager for Southeastern

Container and then as Eastern

Regional Director for NAPCOR.

Sandi has a BS in Human Ecology

from Ramapo College of New

Jersey and a Masters in Environ-

mental Science from UNC-Chapel

Hill. •Reprinted from Plastic Packaging

Perspectives, www.plasticpack-

agingperspective.com, May 29,

2015.

R ECYC L INGTHESE VA LUAB L EP RODUCTS I S ASEASY AS A T R I PTO YOUR LOCA LGROCERY S TORE .

http://www.plasticpackagingperspective.com/

23


R E C Y C L I N G :

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUTEPS FOAM VERSUS COMPOSTABLEPAPERBY C LARE GOLDSBER RY, P L AS T ICS TODAY

Replacing EPS foam trays with

compostable paper plates has

become a major initiative for

six large school districts in the

United States, as I reported

recently in an article, “Goodbye

EPS Trays, Hello Compostable

Plates.” To justify the switch

to paper from plastic, the

announcement cited the “institu-

tional” look of the EPS trays:

Institutional like in “prison,” or

“nursing home” or “hospital?”

Schools are institutions, right?

The changeover from recyclable

plastic to compostable paper is

being done in spite of the fact

that none of the school districts

that responded to my inquiry had

any composting contracts in

place. It was to be an “in-house”

composting effort on school

grounds.

Additionally, the cost of the com-

postable paper plates is higher

than the EPS trays, but, as the

article points out, the school

districts were able to get the

price of the plates down close

to the cost of the trays. The per-

ceived value of purchasing com-

postable paper plates—the

“green” factor that seems to

be inherent in paper that the

“greens” reject in plastics—

makes it worth the extra money.

The Natural Resources Defense

Council (NDRC) never lets a

victory go unnoticed nor an

opportunity to bash plastics to

go unsung. In the NDRC blog,

Switchboard, two staff bloggers

posted commentary on the deci-

sion by the Urban School Food

Alliance, of which the NDRC is a

“key non-profit partner.”

The posts on Switchboard in

response to this change not only

reveal the anger that these peo-

ple carry around about plastic,

but also their lack of scientific

and manufacturing knowledge

when it comes to producing both

paper and plastic products.

“Today [May 20], these dreaded

plastic foam containers suffered

another blow when six of the

nation's largest school districts

—with assistance from NRDC—

announced they are ditching the

annual use of 225 million poly-

styrene trays in their cafeterias

and replacing them with eco-

friendly compostable plates,”

wrote Margaret Brown in her

Switchboard commentary.

A bit of news for Margaret and

the staff at NDRC: Much of the

raw materials that go into mak-

ing these EPS trays are “natural.”

Granted, paper is “natural” as

well, because it comes from

trees. As she notes in her blog,

“Polystyrene is a petroleum-

based plastic” (yes, it is a natural

resource considered by some to

be non-renewable, because natu-

ral petroleum deposits are finite)

“that generally must be sent to

landfills for burial” (because

people like the NDRC and the

Urban School Food Alliance

refuse to recycle this valuable

material at one of the many EPS

foam recycling facilities near

these schools), “where it remains

for hundreds of years (like every-

thing in a landfill including news-

papers, food scraps, metal items,

diapers etc.)” and releases pollu-

tants that may enter air or water”

(that is not true, as urban land-

fills are sanitary because they

are lined with—o-o-o-oh do I

dare say it? PLASTIC!—to keep

the landfill from leaching and so

that the methane can be drawn

off and used for energy).

Margaret also notes that com-

postable lunch plates are “pro-

duced in a much more environ-

mentally and worker-friendly in-

dustrial process” than EPS foam.

I wonder when Margaret last vis-

ited a paper processing facility

and an EPS foam processing

facility so that she can make an

(Continued, see Trays, page 24)

THEY WOULDRATHER BASHP LAS T IC W I THMYTH AND HYPEW H I L E PA INT INGOTHER P RODUCTSECO - F R I END LY.

24


informed decision before putting

out this statement as gospel?

I've been to both types of facili-

ties in my career, and personally

I'd much rather work at an EPS

foam products plant.

Dart Container, one of the largest

makers of EPS foam products,

even has a program—School

Foam Recycling: How to Create

a School Foam Lunch Tray Recy-

cling Program. But, of course, the

NDRC and the Urban School Food

Alliance aren’t interested in recy-

cling or in presenting the issues

in an honest, scientific way. They

would rather bash plastic with

myth and hype while painting

other products as eco-friendly

without even acknowledging that

both have their benefits and both

can be recycled, and that perhaps

plastic is, at the end of the day,

just as eco-friendly as paper!

A quick Internet search of com-

posting facilities in the cities

where the six school districts

are located shows:

• New York City has 17 compost-

ing facilities within a 50-mile

radius;

• in Los Angeles, there are seven

composting facilities within a

50-mile radius (since that school

district likes to do business with

vendors within a 200-mile radius,

finding a composting facility

shouldn’t be a problem);

• in Chicago, there are 10 com-

posting facilities within a 50-mile

radius;

• seven composting facilities

are within a 50-mile radius of

Orlando, FL (Orange County

Public Schools);

• Dallas has three composting

facilities within a 50-mile radius;

• and the Miami-Dade school

district has two facilities.

However, according to Kerry

Flickner, President of Foodservice

Sustainability Solutions, there

are no commercial composting

facilities that can take the num-

ber of plates generated by these

school districts, which he says

is nearly twice the number

estimated in the press release—

closer to 500 million.

“There are no commercial com-

posters that can handle 500

million plates annually,” said

Flickner. “In addition to the

plates, there has to be the proper

carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, a

balance of enzymes and

microbes, or biodegradation

won’t happen."

The odds of the school districts

saying they will compost “in

house” actually being able to do

so are slim. You need more than

just paper plates and dirt—for

composting to be effective, you

also need nitrogen from food

waste and grass. “If they don’t

do it properly, the components

needed to properly compost the

plates will create methane gas,

which will stink up the neighbor-

hood, and they’ll get shut down,”

explained Flickner.

So in spite of the appearance

of being green, the big question

remains: Where will these com-

postable paper plates really end

up? In a haphazard DYI compost-

ing pile behind the football field

at the school? Perhaps at a paper

recycling facility, like Los Angeles

is currently doing? Or, will they

eventually end up in a landfill

where they will create methane

gas, because the alternatives are

too costly and environmentally

unfriendly? •Reprinted from Plastics Today,

www.plasticstoday.com, May 31,

2015.

FOAM VS PA P E R LUNCH T RAYS [CONT ’D ]

CHANGEOVER I SB E ING DONE INSP I T E OF THEFACT THAT NONEOF THE SCHOOLD I S T R IC TS HADANY COMPOST-ING CONTRACTSIN P LACE .

25


R E C Y C L I N G :

VIDEO CALLS FOR REGULATORYUPDATES TO ALLOW INCREASE IN ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGIESBY AMER ICAN CHEM I S T RY COUNC I L

A new, animated video from the

American Chemistry Council’s

Plastics-to-Oil Technologies

Alliance (PTOTA) showcases

plastics-to-fuel technologies as

a viable end-of-life solution for

non-recycled plastics and a

complement to recycling.

The video, “Plastics-to-Fuel:

Creating Energy from Non-Recy-

cled Plastics,” explains pyrolysis

technology—commonly known

as plastics-to-fuel–and its poten-

tial to divert used, non-recycled

plastics from landfills. Pyrolysis

can generate a range of prod-

ucts, including transportation

fuels, electricity, and petroleum-

based feedstocks for manufac-

turing. The video also discusses

some of the barriers to growing

the use of plastics-to-fuel tech-

nologies and proposes solutions

to allow for wider adoption.

“Plastics-to-fuel technologies

complement recycling by con-

verting non-recycled plastics

into useful commodities,” said

Craig Cookson, director of sus-

tainability and recycling for ACC’s

Plastics Division. “Plastics are a

valuable resource that should be

kept out of landfills, and plastics-

to-fuel technologies can help

us do that.”

Additionally, PTOTA has released

a guide, “Regulatory Treatment

of Plastics-to-Fuel Facilities,” to

help regulators better classify

this family of technologies.

The guide includes a permitting

checklist and two-page fact sheet

on regulating plastics-to-fuel

technologies.

“The video shows the potential

of expanding the number of

plastics-to-fuel facilities to

create jobs and locally sourced

fuels and energy,” said Michael

Dungan, director of sales and

marketing for RES Polyflow and

chairman of ACC’s Plastics-to-Oil

Technologies Alliance. “Our facil-

ities create products, we’re man-

ufacturers, not waste managers.”

The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies

Alliance counts Agilyx Corpora-

tion (Beaverton, OR), Cynar Plc

(London, UK), RES Polyflow

(Akron, OH), Americas Styrenics

(The Woodlands, TX), Sealed Air

(Charlotte, NC), and Tetra Tech

(Pasadena, CA) as members. •[View the video online here.]

Press release reprinted from


May 21, 2015.

R ECYC L INGTHESE VA LUAB L EP RODUCTS I S ASEASY AS A T R I PTO YOUR LOCA LGROCERY S TORE .

https://youtu.be/1YUMHAtzuJYl

26


EXTRUSION | PRINTING | CONVERTING

Windmoeller & Hoelscher

23 New England Way · Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865-4252

Phone 800-854-8702 · [email protected] · www.whcorp.com

What do you get when teams of brilliant

minds scrutinize each component of

the proven VAREX range to make it

even better? Higher output, superb

ergonomics, improved safety and a

new world of energy effi ciency.

More than just a pretty face: VAREX II.

VAREX II’s modular design provides fl exibility

for producing blown fi lms from diverse resins.

With the new ENERGY MONITORING module,

you get real-time data, making it easier than ever

to identify potential savings. And that’s just the

beginning ...

http://www.whcorp.com/

27


B A G B A N S :

DALLAS‘ PLASTIC BAG ORDINANCE IS NOW A THING OF THE PAST BY S EBAS T I AN ROBERTSON, WFAA DA L LAS

The Dallas City Council voted

to repeal the city’s plastic bag

ordinance last week over the

objections of Councilman Dwaine

Caraway and others.

Starting Monday, retailers in

the city will no longer be required

to charge an environmental fee

for every bag they provide

customers. Under the ordinance,

retailers had been forced to

charge an environmental fee

starting at five cents per bag.

The council considered two

proposals Wednesday.

One would have amended that

bag ordinance so that plastic

bags could not be sold or given

away, effectively banning “single-

use” plastic bags in the city. That

failed in a 9–5 vote.

The second proposal was a full

repeal of the city’s ordinance

regarding bags, which went into

effect on January 1. That passed,

meaning bags can again be

offered for free from the city’s

retailers beginning on Monday.

Dwaine Caraway, Sandy Greyson,

Scott Griggs, and Philip Kingston

were the only council members

who voted to keep the ordinance

in place.

Caraway in particular fought hard

both in favor of a full bag ban. He

said he will keep fighting for a

full ban, and mentioned opposi-

tion from industry groups, such

as large grocery chains, who

were against the ordinance.

“We’ll fight our way to the voting

boxes, and we'll fight and find

people with a backbone—a com-

mitment to the future and not

commitment to the industry,”

he said. “Because the industry

didn’t fill out those votes, the

industry didn’t go to the polls [...]

and have us sit here. We sit here

on behalf of you. We’re supposed

to represent you and we’re sup-

posed to protect you, and not

be run over like a train behind

money relationships.”

In January, News 8 found some

smaller businesses and con-

sumers were also confused

by details in the nine-page

ordinance.

Mayor Mike Rawlings explained

the logic in repealing in bag ban

in three parts.

First, he said, he doesn't believe

the city does a good job enforc-

ing the ordinances that are on

the books.

“We have 900 ordinances, and

ordinances we don’t do anything

about,” he said, citing an ordi-

nance that requires pets in Dallas

to be spayed or neutered that

more or less goes unenforced.

Second, the mayor said he

believed a full ban would lead

to another lawsuit, which he was

uncertain if the city would win.

Finally, Rawlings said he thinks

the next Texas legislature is likely

take away the city’s authority

to pass such an ordinance in

two years.

“I don't like what is happening

in Austin. I would like to have our

authority to make these deci-

sions,” the mayor said, “but

reality is reality.”

Caraway said he wanted to

write a tell-all book about the

bag battle.

More than $500,000 was raised

from the environmental fees in

the five months of the bag ordi-

nance. What to do with those

proceeds will be discussed at

a later date. •Reprinted from WFAA-ABC in

Dallas, www.wfaa.com, June 8,

2015.

MORE THAN$500 ,000 WASRA I S ED F ROMENV I RONMENTA LF E ES IN F I V EMONTHS .

28


B A G B A N S :

ARE PLASTIC BAGS BACK INHUNTINGTON BEACH?BY K E I TH SHARON/STAF F WR I T E R

For two years, Huntington Beach

stores have been prohibited from

wrapping up groceries and other

goods in plastic. The ban will

officially end in 30 days.

Plastic bags brought Mike Posey

into politics.

And Monday night, Posey led the

charge to bring plastic bags back

to Huntington Beach.

The City Council supported

Posey’s ordinance repealing the

ban on plastic bags (and the 10-

cent mandatory charge for paper

bags) by a 6–1 vote.

For two years, Huntington Beach

stores have been prohibited from

wrapping up groceries and other

goods in plastic. The repeal is

now scheduled to have a second

reading before it’s officially

adopted 30 days later.

“It was the most important issue

to me,” Posey said. “This one

single issue inspired me to run

for City Council. The ban has

nothing to do with the environ-

ment. It has everything to do

with a consumer’s freedom of

choice.

“Grocers like the convenience,

cost and utility of plastic bags,”

he said.

Huntington Beach resident Jeff

Coffman argued unsuccessfully

against repealing the bag ban.

Coffman said every other U.S.

city where a ban was enacted

still has a ban in place.

“The last thing you need to do

is add another 100 million bags

(into the environment),” Coffman

said. “Don’t be the first city to

repeal the ordinance.”

The plastic bag ban was enacted

in 2013 as an environmental

measure aimed at keeping the

beaches, ocean and storm

drains clear.

Mayor Jill Hardy, who voted

against the repeal, said she was

concerned about the length of

time the public had to review

and comment on the bag

agenda item.

The item’s environmental

impact report was posted last

Wednesday.

“We should enable the public

to read it and comment on it,”

Hardy said.

A repeal of the ban means

grocers can choose whether to

offer plastic bags, and they can

no longer charge 10 cents for

paper bags.

Of course, the whole issue will

come up again in November 2016

when a statewide ban on plastic

bags is on the ballot. But until

then, the question “Paper or

plastic?” will be appropriate

again in Huntington Beach.

During the ban, Sue Gordon, the

community relations manager for

Rainbow Environmental Services,

said she saw no impact—there

seemed to be just as many bags

in circulation as before.

“No matter what, the plastic

bags we pick up get recycled,”

Gordon said. “We never did

see a measurable difference.”

Rainbow sells recycled bags for

use in making crown molding,

among other products. •Reprinted from Orange County

Register, www.ocregister.com,

April 21, 2015.

THE BAN HAS EV E RY TH ING TO DO W I TH ACONSUMER ’ SF R E EDOM OFCHO ICE .

29


B A G B A N S :

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SUEH.B. OVER REPEAL OF PLASTICBAG BANBY ANTHONY C LARK CAR P IO , H . B . INDEP ENDENT

Three California environmental

groups are suing Huntington

Beach, claiming that the city

unjustifiably repealed its ban

on plastic bags.

The Huntington Beach/Seal

Beach chapter of the Surfrider

Foundation, Costa Mesa-based

Orange County Coastkeeper and

Sacramento-based Californians

Against Waste filed a claim

Wednesday in Orange County

Superior Court, stating that the

city failed to prepare a proper

environmental impact report

analyzing the effects of lifting

the ban, said Angela Howe, an

attorney representing the group.

“[The city] did a 10-page adden-

dum to the original environmen-

tal impact report, which was

issued with the 2013 bag ban

itself,” she said. “The addendum

breezes through all the issues

and doesn’t put any analysis into

what the real harm will be from

this new setting.”

Howe said the city states in

the addendum that about 99

million single-use plastic bags

would be recirculated into

the city.

The nonprofits want the city to

rescind the repeal and conduct a

full environmental analysis of the

possible effects of lifting the ban.

“[The repeal] is definitely a step

backward in terms of environ-

mental protection,” Howe said.

“But what’s worse is the way the

city went about repealing it. They

just disregarded their duties

under the California Environ -

mental Quality Act.”

Huntington Beach City Atty.

Michael Gates said after review-

ing the suit on Wednesday that

the claim is “the same basis as

any environmental report chal-

lenge” and that there is “nothing

significant to the challenge.”

The city’s plastic bag ban, as well

as a 10-cent fee for using paper

bags, went into effect in Novem-

ber 2013 as a way to reduce

litter, especially at the beach.

Many residents considered the

ban government overreach,

and the City Council finalized its

repeal May 4. The repeal went

into effect Wednesday.

The repeal process began in

January when Councilman Mike

Posey, who was elected last

November along with three other

new council members, proposed

it in light of a statewide effort

backed by about 800,000 resi-

dents to put a referendum about

the state’s plastic bag ban on the

November 2016 ballot.

“[The city] should have not

banned the bags in the first place

because there were no environ-

mental reasons to enact a bag

ban and there were no metrics to

measure its efficacy,” Posey said

Wednesday. “This isn’t about

the environment.”

In March, Assemblyman Matthew

Harper (R-Huntington Beach)

introduced two bills aimed at

repealing the statewide bag ban

as well as the 10-cent fee on

paper bags.

Harper, a former Huntington

Beach mayor, represents the

74th Assembly District, which

includes Huntington Beach,

Newport Beach, Costa Mesa,

Irvine, Laguna Beach and

Laguna Woods. •Reprinted from Huntington

Beach Independent,

www.hbindependent.com,

June 3, 2015.

THERE WERE NO MET R ICS TO MEASURE I T S E F F ICACY.

30


http://www.hubinternational.com/

31


M A R I N E D E B R I S :

TINY PLASTICS L IKELY POLLUT-ING SACRAMENTO RIVER, UCDAVIS RESEARCHER SAYS BY EDWARD ORT I Z , SACRAMENTO BEE

A UC Davis researcher is studying

whether tiny bits of plastic used

in face washes, toothpaste and

other consumer products are

accumulating in Sacramento-

area rivers and flowing out to

the Pacific Ocean.

Microbeads are tiny synthetic

particles barely noticeable to

the human eye. They are so

small that five can fit on the edge

of a penny.

Their small size also means

they don’t get filtered out of

the wastewater that flows from

homes to sewage-treatment

plants. For this reason, a growing

number of scientists are pushing

for them to be phased out.

Manufacturers of cosmetics such

as L’Oréal, Neutrogena and John-

son & Johnson use microbeads

for their exfoliant properties. A

cosmetic product may contain

microbeads if it lists polyethyl-

ene as an ingredient.

Microbeads are part of a large

family of microplastic. Microplas-

tics, which are smaller than 5

millimeters, are fragments of

degraded plastic from myriad

sources.

Many studies have found that

microbeads and microplastics

accumulate in fish that live in

rivers, lakes and oceans. The

plastics pose a health concern

for animals and people because

they absorb pollutants like DDT,

flame retardants and pesticides,

Rochman said.

“Microplastics and microbeads

are sponges for the chemicals

surrounding them in the water

column,” said Chelsea Rochman,

a postdoctoral fellow in aquatic

health at UC Davis. “They are a

vector for pollutants to enter the

food web.”

She is one of about 50 scientists

pushing for microbeads to be

phased out in California. A bill

moving through the Legislature,

AB 888, would ban the sale of

products made with microbeads

by 2020. A similar bill failed to

win passage last year.

Last year, Illinois became the first

state to ban cosmetics using mi-

crobeads. Last month, Colorado

and New Jersey followed suit.

The California Water Resources

Control Board is looking into

microbeads as well. “This is an

issue of emerging concern,” said

board spokesman Tim Moran.

Some cosmetics-makers have

announced plans to stop using

microbeads. L’Oréal, for instance,

says it will remove them from its

scrubs by 2017.

The same focus has been under-

way at Johnson & Johnson, which

uses microbeads in its Clean &

Clear facial scrubs.

“We stopped the use of polyeth-

ylene beads in new products

globally last year when we

announced our 2017 goal,”

said company spokeswoman

Peggy Ballman.

Ballman said Johnson & Johnson

is reformulating its products with

alternative materials. She did not

say what materials will be used.

Rochman has been sampling the

effluent from the Sacramento

regional wastewater treatment

plant on the Sacramento River

and the water near wastewater

plants in Antioch and Napa to

establish if microbeads are enter-

ing river environments.

That study is not finished, but

Rochman contends microplastics

will certainly be found. Rochman

is also sampling other water-

sheds, including Chesapeake

Bay and Lake Ontario.

Locally, she is also sampling

clams in San Pablo Bay for

evidence of microbeads or

microplastic.

(Continued, see Beads, page 32)

THE S TUDY OF F E RS INS IGHTSON POTENT IA LS T RAT EG I E S ANDSOLUT IONS .

32


Rochman conducted a study

recently in which she fed fish

microbeads and microplastic in a

lab to assess any health effects.

“We saw a significant increase

in flame retardant in the fish,”

Rochman said. Flame retardants

have been associated with can-

cer, reduced sperm count and

decreased IQ in children.

There was also evidence of

endocrine disruption in the fish

fed the plastic, she said.

Studies have found that micro -

beads in fish is a concern

because some of the fish that

eat the microplastic are also fish

species that humans eat.

When Rochman sampled fish she

purchased in Half Moon Bay last

October she found evidence of

microplastic in the gut of the

fish dissected.

To date, more than 267 species

in the marine environment are

known to have been affected by

entanglement in nets or plastic

bags or by ingesting plastic,

according to a 2012 study that

was published in Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology.

The ocean has become a great

dumping ground for plastic

material. The United Nations

Environment Program estimates

that there are 18,000 pieces of

plastic for every square kilometer

of ocean.

This plastic comes from a wide

variety of sources, including mi-

crobeads. One culprit, Rochman

said, are the plastic fibers in

clothing. When synthetic cloth

degrades, it sheds fibers into the

washing machine, which then

flow to the sewer system.

“No one has looked into the

toxicity of plastic fibers yet,”

she said.

Another new area of research will

be establishing whether plastic

sheeting used to cover crops has

been contributing to microplastic

in rivers and the ocean. Such

plastic sheeting is common in

California strawberry fields.

“This plastic gets shredded in

the normal process of tilling the

soil,” said Stiv Wilson, campaign

director for the Story of Stuff

Project.

“The Chesapeake Bay system is

crazy polluted with this kind of

microplastic,” Wilson said. •Reprinted from www.sacbee.com,

April 20, 2015.

T INY B EADS L I K E LY PO L LU T ING SACRAMENTO R I V E R [CONT ’D ]

33


G R E E N :

SAN FRANCISCO’S 2015COMPOSTABLE SHOPPINGBAG PROJECTBY A L E XA K I E LT Y, SAN F RANC I SCO GOVERNMENT

San Francisco Department of

Environment is launching a resi-

dential zero waste campaign this

Spring, with billboards and social

media promoting participation

in recycling and composting. As

part of this campaign, BioBag is

working to make compostable

shopping bags more affordable,

and using the bags as space to

further communicate the zero

waste message. The bags are

made of Novamont compostable

resin. Compostable shopping

bags can be reused to line a

kitchen container for collecting

food scraps, helping residents

participate in the City’s compost-

ing program.

Some sample images from the

campaign are below, to give a

sense of what the promotions

will look like, including the

tagline “Recycling, it’s the SF

thing to do.”

Timing: The campaign runs from

the end of March through August

2015, with several events in the

summer around the U.S. Confer-

ence of Mayors (in June).

Details: The compostable shop-

ping bags are certified and

approved for the City’s green bin

program. They will cost approxi-

mately 8 cents/bag, and can be

sold for 10 cents/bag, like other

checkout bags. The bags can be

purchased directly from the

manufacturer (based in San

Leandro), or through several

distributors.

Commitment: We are asking for

you to commit to purchasing the

compostable shopping bags for

4–5 months, and selling them

at the checkout counter. We will

have flyers and promotional

materials, should you want to

further communicate the zero

waste message and promote

the new checkout bag!

Scope: While the campaign

targets a few San Francisco

neighborhoods this Spring and

Summer, the compostable bags

are available for any store in

San Francisco, and beyond the

campaign’s end date in August.

Compostable produce bags are

also available, if you want to

expand the program storewide.

This zero waste campaign will

have a big impact, and we invite

you to participate and show your

city pride! Plus, compostable

shipping bags may be a new

(Continued, see Custom, page 34)

COMPOSTAB L EBAGS ARE CERT I F I ED ANDAPP ROVED FORTHE C I T Y ’ SGREEN B IN P ROGRAM.

Revised 04.14.2015

BioBag Americas, Inc.www.biobagusa.com CLEAN & RESPONSIBLE

2Custom San Francisco Front–End & To–Go Bags

Custom San Francisco Front–End & To–Go Bags

10 G

allo

n Fr

ont–

End

Bag

7 Ga

llon

To—G

o Ba

g

Certifications Certified Compostable according to the European

Standard EN 13432 and the US Standard ASTM D6400.

7 Gallon To—Go Bag16˝ x 20˝ 0.80 mil500 bags/case108 cases/pallet

10 Gallon Front–End Bag19˝ x 21˝ 0.96 mil500 bags/case72 cases/pallet

Product

Participate in San Francisco’s highly promoted Zero Waste Campaign

*Bags shown in natural color resin and green color ink

34


CUSTOM COMPOSTAB L E BAGS [CONT ’D ]

popular item in your store, as

shoppers will realize they are

less expensive than retail boxes

of compostable bags typically

used to line kitchen containers.

For more details, please don’t

hesitate to contact us.

Novamont (questions about

the bags): Rhodes Yepsen,

[email protected];

610.401.6666 (cell),

San Francisco Environment

(questions about the City’s role):

Alexa Kielty, alexa.kielty@sfgov.

org; 415.355. 3747. •Press release reprinted from

SF Environment and Novamont,

April 14, 2015.

www.hudsonsharp.com

TH I S Z E RO WASTECAMPA IGN W I L LHAVE A B IG IMPACT.

http://www.reifenhauserinc.com/

35


G R E E N :

THE GREEN BEHIND CALIFORNIA’SGREENSBY S T EVEN MA LANGA , S EN IOR ED I TOR , C I T Y JOURNA L

In the fall of 2010, an army of

California groups—including

blue-collar unions, small busi-

nesses, manufacturers, and big

energy companies—tried to

persuade voters to suspend the

state’s rigorous anti-global-

warming law, which mandates a

rollback of greenhouse-gas emis-

sions to 1990 levels. The advo-

cates for delaying the law argued

that, with an unemployment rate

of 12.4 percent, California

needed to focus on creating jobs

and couldn’t afford costly new

measures to slash carbon emis-

sions, such as requiring utilities

to generate power from renew-

able sources. But what propo-

nents of the jobs measure,

known as Proposition 23, didn’t

count on was the financial might

of California’s environmentalists.

In just months, greens raised

three times as much money as

the initiative’s supporters. As

the Los Angeles Times put it, the

environmentalists then “steam-

rolled” their foes with a $30

million campaign that deployed

television ads featuring Holly-

wood celebrities, millions of

mailings, and hundreds of thou-

sands of robo-calls and text

messages. One environmentalist

described the coalition that

crushed Prop. 23—comprising

entertainers, hedge-fund hon-

chos, technology billionaires,

and the many organizations that

they back—as “the new face of

the environmental movement.” It

wasn’t the face of the movement,

though, but its pocketbook that

won the battle.

Californians have long had a

green reputation. But for many

years, interest in the environ-

ment expressed itself in modest

programs of nature conservation,

or in efforts to mitigate pollution

problems such as the smog that

once choked the state’s cities.

Even as they gained political

power over the last 15 years or

so, however, California greens

have moved steadily leftward—

touting, for example, zero-growth

initiatives that make it crazily

expensive to create jobs, hous-

ing, and infrastructure. Credit,

or blame, for this development

should go to a small circle of

superrich Californians, who made

their fortunes chiefly in so-called

clean industries like technology

and finance, and who have

poured vast sums of money into

the green cause. These wealthy

individuals bankroll hundreds of

environmental organizations and

spend massively to pass green

ballot initiatives and elect green-

friendly pols. So influential are

these West Coast players that a

recent report from Columbia

University’s Journalism School—

otherwise sympathetic to envi-

ronmentalism—described the

concentration of green power as

“troubling.” Even more discon-

certing, these true believers also

seem intent on promoting their

aggressive form of environmen-

talism around the country. Call it

the Californication of the green

movement.

California’s concern for nature

has moved far from its origins.

Back in the late nineteenth and

early twentieth century, the

state’s extraordinary beauty

helped give rise to the an-

tecedents of modern environ-

mentalism. John Muir embodied

the conservationist and preserva-

tionist spirit of the era. A Scottish

immigrant with a deep love for

the outdoors, Muir helped to get

Congress in 1890 to establish

Yosemite National Park in the

central eastern part of the state

and in 1892 cofounded the Sierra

Club as a means for Californians

to enjoy—and protect—the mag-

nificent Sierra Nevada mountain

range. Several decades later, a

young San Francisco resident,

Ansel Adams, discovered

Yosemite, joined the Sierra Club,

and, with a Brownie camera that

his father had given him, began

photographing the California

landscape. Adams’s romantic

vistas captured mid-twentieth-

century America’s imagination,

and he used his artistic influence

to reinforce Muir’s appeals to

preserve Yosemite.

(Continued, see Power, page 36)

CA L I FORN IA’ SCONCERN FORNATURE HASMOVED FAR F ROM I T S OR IG INS .

36


Struggles over the protection of

undeveloped parts of California

characterized the green move-

ment for decades, until a new

type of environmentalism began

to emerge in the 1960s, amid

growing concerns about the im-

pact of pollution on air, water,

and soil. The recognition that the

burning of leaded gasoline gen-

erated urban smog prompted

Californians—living in a state

with the nation’s greatest num-

ber of automobiles—to lobby for

better air quality. In 1967, Repub-

lican governor Ronald Reagan

signed a law setting up an

agency to pursue that end—the

first such state environmental

body in the country.

Drawing on new intellectual

currents, Reagan’s successor,

Democrat Jerry Brown, took

office in 1975 proselytizing for a

more radical form of environmen-

talism. In 1973, the Norwegian

philosopher Arne Næss had char-

acterized conservation programs

and efforts to limit the harmful

effects of pollution as mere

“shallow ecology.” Næss instead

propounded a sweeping “deep

ecology,” which argued that

every living thing had a right to

its existence and which sought

sharply to constrain human activ-

ity. That same year, the econo-

mist E. F. Schumacher authored

the bestseller Small Is Beautiful,

a book promoting a “sustainable

economics” based on limits to

growth. Brown’s governing

agenda showed the influence of

these ideas, including a reduced

pace of government-sponsored

infrastructure construction and

other development. Some of the

consequences of Brown’s left-

green enthusiasms proved too

much for Californians to swallow,

however. In 1980, a Mediter-

ranean fruit-fly infestation threat-

ened the state’s crops, but the

governor hesitated to attack the

outbreak with pesticides. By the

time Brown ordered spraying, the

pest had spread so extensively

that buyers were threatening to

boycott the state’s produce.

Brown’s popularity plummeted,

short-circuiting his bid to win a

U.S. Senate seat in 1982. For the

next 16 years, his successors—

Republicans George Deukmejian

and Pete Wilson—often used

their office to check the power

of environmentalists, including

those working for the govern-

ment’s environmental bureaucra-

cies, which had proliferated

during the 1970s.

Despite forcing this temporary

pushback, California’s greens

would be emboldened by muta-

tions in the state’s economy. For

decades, two largely blue-collar

industries—manufacturing and

agriculture—had driven the

state’s economic growth. But in

the early 1960s, advances in

semiconductors transformed the

area around Stanford University

and San Jose—once known as

the Valley of the Heart’s Delight

because of its agricultural

riches—into the center of Ameri-

can technological innovation:

Silicon Valley. With this dramatic

shift came staggering affluence,

not only from the technology

being invented but also from bur-

geoning financial services, which

took off in the Valley and nearby

San Francisco to help fund the

tech boom. A 2013 census report

found that the greater San

Jose/Santa Clara area, the heart

of Silicon Valley, had the nation’s

second-highest concentration of

wealth, behind only Connecticut’s

suburban bedroom communities,

filled with high-paid Wall

Streeters. The San Francisco

peninsula, home to many work-

ing in the Valley’s tech industries,

ranked as America’s fourth-

wealthiest metro area.

The riches of two Silicon Valley

pioneers, David Packard and

William Hewlett, have flowed

heavily into California environ-

mental causes—though not be-

cause the men themselves

directed much money that way.

The Stanford engineering stu-

dents famously started Hewlett-

Packard in 1939 out of a Palo Alto

garage, with an initial investment

of just $538. By the time Packard

resigned as chairman of the

board in 1993, ending active

management by either of the co-

founders, their respective stock

holdings were worth billions. The

pair poured lots of that money

into philanthropy. Packard, who

served as Richard Nixon’s deputy

secretary of defense, spent phil-

anthropic dollars on scientific fel-

lowships, children’s health care,

and family and youth problems.

His giving also supported conser-

vative policy nonprofits, includ-

ing the American Enterprise

Institute. When he died in 1996,

the Packard Foundation received

some $4 billion of his estate;

it now has $6 billion in assets.

Hewlett’s charitable dollars

helped pay for scientific

research, efforts to solve urban

woes, and the arts. His modest

contributions to the environmen-

tal cause focused mostly on the

philanthropic work of his wife,

Flora, who had spent some of her

youth in the Sierra Nevada and

wanted to protect the area’s

beauty. Hewlett died in 2001;

today, his foundation’s assets

approach $8 billion.

Since the deaths of HP’s

cofounders, their heirs have

pushed the two foundations’

philanthropy ever-leftward, and

activist environmentalism is a

prime beneficiary. Under the

direction of Packard’s three

daughters, the conservative

Republican’s philanthropic

wealth has gone to the National

Abortion Rights Action League

Foundation, the Feminist Major-

ity Foundation, and the very

green Earth Action Network.

This liberal giving has prompted

Packard’s son, David, whose

political views are closer to his

father’s, to withdraw his money

from the foundation and form

his own nonprofit, which gives

to more traditional and non-

political causes.

In a signature moment in green

giving, the Packard and Hewlett

Foundations decided in 2007 to

boost their spending on climate-

change issues, funneling the

money into a new, San Fran-

cisco–based nonprofit, Climate-

Works, led initially by the former

head of environmental programs


CA L I FORN IA’ S GREEN POWER [CONT ’D ]

37


at Hewlett. The Hewlett Founda-

tion, according to the Columbia

Journalism School report, agreed

to put $500 million into Climate-

Works, with the Packard Founda-

tion adding approximately $390

million since 2008. Two other

major California funders have

joined Packard and Hewlett in

the climate-change cause: the

Energy Foundation, a San Fran-

cisco nonprofit that bundles

smaller contributions into large

environmental grants; and the

San Francisco–based Sea Change

Foundation, created by Nathaniel

Simons, son of the enormously

successful New York hedge-fund

manager Jim Simons of Renais-

sance Technologies. The younger

Simons operates his own fund,

Meritage, based in San Fran-

cisco, and has been described

by Inside Philanthropyas the

“quiet hedge fund manager en-

gaged in massive climate giving.”

Generous funders of the Califor-

nia environmental movement in-

clude other wealthy Silicon Valley

techno-environmentalists and

San Francisco hedge-fund

greens. Intel Corporation co-

founder Gordon Moore and his

wife set up the Palo Alto–based

Moore Foundation in 2000, stak-

ing it with $5 billion, largely ac-

cumulated through Intel stock.

Moore initially targeted some of

his green philanthropy at conser-

vation, an interest he had devel-

oped as a recreational fisherman.

But he, too, has veered toward

antigrowth environmentalism,

channeling huge amounts of

money to nonprofits and trusts

so that they can buy up land in

Northern California and freeze

future development. Moore has

also spent money on green poli-

tics, including $1 million on the

2010 campaign to thwart Prop.

23. Just minutes from Moore’s

foundation in Palo Alto is the

charity founded by Google execu-

tive Eric Schmidt and his wife,

Wendy: the $300 million Schmidt

Foundation. The Schmidts have

been large funders of major Cali-

fornia environmentalist players

like the Energy Foundation, but

through their 11th Hour project,

they also back smaller local envi-

ronmental efforts, including anti-

fracking research and campaigns

to ban or restrict oil and gas

exploration. The Schmidts gave

half a million dollars to defeat

Prop. 23.

The most visible of California’s

rich environmentalists is Tom

Steyer, who led the anti–Prop.

23 effort and seeded it with $5

million of his own money. Steyer

made headlines in 2014 by

pledging to invest $100 million

in congressional campaigns in

seven states, seeking to influ-

ence federal climate policy. Oper-

ating out of his 1,800-acre ranch

in Pescadero, he and his wife

have also pumped money into

the TomKat Charitable Trust,

based in San Francisco, which

focuses on giving to “organiza-

tions that envision a world with

climate stability, a healthy and

just food system, and broad

prosperity.”

Getting a clear view on the giving

by these nonprofits, and by the

individuals behind them, isn’t

easy. For instance, Steyer made

a good deal of his fortune as a

hedge-fund chief investing in

fossil fuels, the spread of which

he now so opposes. Farallon Cap-

ital, where Steyer served as CEO

and where he still has holdings,

has invested heavily in a com-

pany that is building a competi-

tor to the proposed Keystone XL

pipeline—which Steyer is spend-

ing money to stop on environ-

mental grounds. These invest-

ments, as the New York

Times put it, “cloud” Steyer’s

environmentalist reputation.

Meantime, the Simonses’ Sea

Change Foundation receives sub-

stantial sums from a Bermuda

entity, Klein Ltd., with undis-

closed sources of revenue.

Indeed, there’s little public infor-

mation about Sea Change. The

nonprofit’s entire online pres-

ence, described by Inside Philan-

thropy as “quite possibly the

least informative [charitable

organization] website,” is a sin-

gle page announcing that it does

not accept unsolicited grant

requests. One reason for the

secrecy may be that Klein Ltd.

shares an address with a

Bermuda law firm that represents

investors in Russian energy com-

panies—prompting reports that

some of the money that Sea

Change showers on environmen-

tal groups in the U.S. may come

from overseas oil interests, eager

to kill fracking.

Whatever the source and pur-

pose of the money, much of the

giving in the California environ-

mental movement ultimately

seems to involve this handful of

funders, contributing to the per-

ception, even within environmen-

talist circles, that rich elites run

the show. To combat the elitism

label, the foundations devote a

portion of their wealth to sustain

hundreds of small, community-

based organizations throughout

the state. The Schmidt Founda-

tion’s 11th Hour project, for

example, has made hundreds

of smaller grants to local groups

working to stir green passion

among clergy, journalists, small

farmers, college students, and

other constituencies. One such

nonprofit is the San Francisco–

based, clergy-led Interfaith

Power and Light, which sponsors

“preach-ins” about climate

change. The 14-acre Pie Ranch in

Pescadero, which educates high

school students in the Bay Area

in the “economic, social, environ-

mental and political implica-

tions” of food, is another

recipient of Schmidt money.

Others include Oakland’s CoFED,

which helps students create non-

profit college food cooperatives;

and Physicians for Social

Responsibility, who aim to

“educate communities, the

general public and policy makers

on the importance of California’s

climate laws.”

Some of this local giving bolsters

green organizations that claim to

represent constituencies not typ-

ically associated with environ-

mentalism, helping to counter

the criticism that the movement

is made up mainly of “aging,

white Americans,” as the Los

Angeles Times put it. Schmidt

money backs Los Angeles’s

Communities for a Better Envi-

ronment, which tries to mobilize

“people of color—African-Ameri-

can, Latino, Filipino” to lobby for



38


curbs on greenhouse gases. The

Packard Foundation and Schmidt

support Oakland’s People’s

Grocery, which describes itself

as “a leader in the evolving food

justice movement”—that is, food

produced in “sustainable”

ways—in inner cities. Schmidt

also funds Green for All, the Oak-

land-based nonprofit founded by

former Obama environmental ad-

visor Van Jones, “which works to

make sure people of color have a

place and a voice in the climate

movement.” The Hewlett Founda-

tion has given nearly $2 million

to the BlueGreen Alliance, a non-

profit with offices in San Fran-

cisco and Minneapolis that tries

to bring blue-collar private-

worker unions into the green

movement.

Generating enthusiasm from

these constituencies for Califor-

nia’s brand of environmentalism

is a challenge. When the Blue-

Green Alliance announced its

opposition to the Keystone XL

pipeline, the head of the Labor-

ers’ International Union of North

America blasted it for trying to

deep-six a project that promised

to create thousands of jobs.

(See “State of Disunion,” Winter

2015.) The union bolted the al-

liance. Similarly, last summer, 16

California Democratic legislators

from areas of the state with high

unemployment tried but failed to

persuade party leaders to sus-

pend portions of the state’s anti-

global-warming law. Many of the

legislators, two-thirds of whom

were minorities, hailed from

districts representing struggling

inland communities like Fresno,

San Bernardino, and Modesto, or

from troubled minority neighbor-

hoods in Los Angeles and other

cities. Their letter to the Demo-

cratic leadership in the assembly

warned that the cap-and-trade

requirements of the anti-global-

warming law are “weakening the

economy just as California is re-

covering from the last recession,

and hurting the most vulnerable

members of our communities.”

The California environmental

movement’s primary work isn’t

grassroots organizing and prose-

lytizing, however: it’s the lobby-

ing, campaigning, and legal

advocacy of behemoths like the

Sierra Club, the Environmental

Defense Fund (EDF), and Earth-

justice—a $40 million public-in-

terest law firm that calls itself

“the Earth’s lawyer.” These

giants derive much of their con-

siderable funding from superrich

donors. Since 2010, the Sierra

Club has pulled in at least $5

million from the Sea Change

Foundation, about $4 million

from the Energy Foundation, $2.4

million from the Hewlett Founda-

tion, and another $500,000 from

Schmidt. That kind of money

attracts environmental advocates

from elsewhere in the country,

too. Over the last four years, the

Natural Resources Defense Coun-

cil (NRDC), headquartered in

New York, received $1.5 million

from the Schmidt Foundation,

$2.42 million from the Hewlett

Foundation, $4 million from Sea

Change, and more than $10 mil-

lion from the Energy Foundation.

The EDF, also New York–based,

got $600,000 from Hewlett, $1.1

million from Sea Change, and

nearly $2.5 million from the

Energy Foundation over that

same period. No surprise that

both the NRDC and the EDF have

major operations in California

these days.

The green giants have increas-

ingly sought to impose expansive

environmental policies through

the courts. In this respect,

they’ve learned from liberal judi-

cial activists, who, failing to win

their goals legislatively, have

sought redress through the

courts for everything from more

public school funding to greater

public housing subsidies. (See

“Brennan’s Revenge,” Winter

2014.) In fact, recent green poli-

cymaking in California often

derives not from popular votes

or legislative actions but from

judicial rulings. Earthjustice has

been a major promoter of this

trend. The group serves as legal

counsel to several well-funded

California environmentalist or-

ganizations litigating to limit new

development, halt the expansion

of businesses, and force firms

and individuals to spend addi-

tional millions on environmental

permits and legal costs. Recent

cases brought by Earthjustice in-

clude an attempt to force the

Port of Long Beach to stop allow-

ing coal exports from its facili-

ties. California’s environmental

lawyers now also regularly chal-

lenge contracts made by the

state’s utilities for the purchase

of fossil-fuel-generated electric-

ity, contending that they should

buy more energy from renewable

resources. And green lawyers

press California’s utilities regula-

tors to strong-arm energy firms

to invest more in renewable-

energy infrastructure.

Perhaps no environmentalist

legal gambit has had more

profound consequences on

Californians than the nearly

decade-long court battle waged

by the NRDC and Earthjustice to

protect the delta smelt, a three-

inch baitfish, under the Endan-

gered Species Act. (See

“California’s Water Wars,” Sum-

mer 2011.) The greens have long

sought to curtail water transfers

from northern reservoirs to other

parts of the state, including Cen-

tral Valley farms; such transfers,

they believe, violate California’s

natural order. Now the green

lawyers charge that the water

transfers have disrupted the

smelt’s habitat, endangering the

species. The delta smelt’s num-

bers have shrunk, but research

published in 2010 by Patricia

Gilbert of the University of Mary-

land Center for Environmental

Science suggests that the fish’s

decline is attributable to waste-

water flowing into the Sacra-

mento–San Joaquin Bay Delta.

Nevertheless, courts have

ordered reduced water flows,

one consequence of which has

been dramatically to worsen the

effects of California’s three-year

drought—forcing farmers to

retire formerly productive and

now-parched land, lay off work-

ers, and spend heavily to pump

water from deep in the ground.

(See “The Scorching of Califor-

nia,” Winter 2015.) Recently, the

Ninth Court of Appeals in San

Francisco ruled that the lowly

smelt deserves “the highest of

priorities . . . even if it means the



39


sacrifice of . . . many millions of

dollars in public funds.” That

ruling sums up the ethos of the

environmentalists who’ve funded

and fought this legal battle.

Green greenbacks are also re-

making California’s politics.

While the fight over Prop. 23 in

2010 may have displayed the

“new face” of the environmental

movement in the state, the bat-

tles over a pair of 2006 California

initiatives revealed the massive

resources that green donors can

now wield politically. One cam-

paign (successful) sought to de-

feat Proposition 90, an initiative

that would have curtailed emi-

nent domain—the taking of

private property by California

governments for public pur-

poses. Environmental backers

lined up against it because it lim-

ited the power of state bureau-

cracies like the California Coastal

Commission to make demands

on private property owners and

enabled owners to sue for com-

pensation when government rul-

ings battered the value of their

properties. To stop the initiative,

California greens formed the

Conservationists for Taxpayer

Protection, who raised some $1.9

million, including donations from

the California League of Conser-

vation Voters, the NRDC, the

Sierra Club, and the EDF.

That same election cycle, greens

also tried (unsuccessfully) to win

passage of Proposition 87, an ini-

tiative that would have slapped

$4 billion in new taxes on energy

companies in California and then

invested the revenue in renew-

able-power projects. The force

behind it was real-estate heir

Stephen Bing, who used a nearly

$600 million fortune to turn him-

self into a Hollywood film pro-

ducer and a prominent giver to

Democratic causes on the West

Coast. For the Prop. 87 cam-

paign, he spent nearly $50 mil-

lion of his own money, the largest

personal expenditure ever made

on a California ballot measure.

Other green donors kicked in $10

million, including Wendy Schmidt

($1 million) and Nathaniel Simons

($225,000). The oil industry

countered with $94 million of its

own spending, making Prop. 87

the costliest California initiative

in history.

Green causes increasingly domi-

nate California’s individual

political races, too. Their

takeover advanced decisively

in 1996, when a green-activist

group, Vote the Coast, targeted a

handful of state assembly seats

in wealthier coastal areas and

helped get seven environmen-

tally oriented Democratic candi-

dates elected. That tipped the

assembly to the Democrats and

created an environmental caucus

in the lower house.

The new assembly majority pro-

ceeded to fill the state’s environ-

mental bureaucracies with

left-environmentalists, making

those bodies much more likely

to side with greens against busi-

nesses and landowners in any

disputes. “There is a pitched

competition between California

agencies for which is the most

nonsensical in its implementa-

tion of over-reaching regula-

tions,” public affairs consultant

Laer Pearce observed last year.

The California Air Resources

Board, he noted, has “tried to

ban black cars in the state in its

fevered effort to save the world

from global warming.” The Cali-

fornia Energy Commission has

outlawed large high-performance

plasma televisions because they

burn up too much energy. The

Coastal Commission—originally

created to oversee coastal devel-

opment in California—has relent-

lessly extended its reach over the

property of individuals and busi-

nesses, often refusing to let own-

ers build or rebuild structures,

and even objecting to the type of

beach furniture that homeowners

use. The commission’s radical

character was captured in the

title of a 2014 speech by one of

its retiring Democratic-appointed

commissioners: “In Defense of

Unreasonableness—Saving the

California Coast.”

“Unreasonable” is an apt

description for how environmen-

talist groups approach California

political races. Ventura County

Star columnist Tim Herdt com-

plained last year that greens

were now “hugging a tree too

hard” in choosing candidates to

back. The League of Conserva-

tion Voters, Herdt pointed out,

spent $50,000 in a 2014 primary

in an overwhelmingly Democratic

district simply to try to elect the

candidate with the greenest of

green records. Local office seek-

ers in some coastal areas must

run a gauntlet of well-funded

environmentalists if they want

to win. For incumbents, proving

nature-friendly credentials

becomes an ongoing challenge.

“Candidates who filled out the

Sierra Club’s and [California

League of Conservation Voters’]

questionnaires this spring faced

a minefield of potential litmus

tests. They were asked about

fracking, climate change, clear-

cutting, proposed tunnels to

divert Sacramento River water,

offshore oil drilling, CEQA [Cali-

fornia Environmental Quality Act]

reform, renewable energy man-

dates, a ban on plastic bags and

more,” Herdt observed. Even

Jerry Brown doesn’t pass muster

any more. The Sierra Club

refused to endorse anyone in the

2014 governor’s race, explaining

that it had major differences on

issues like fracking with Gover-

nor Brown, a onetime environ-

mentalist darling.

California politics is likely to

grow greener still. After spending

millions across the country in the

2014 election cycle, Steyer plans

to bring his environmentalist

giving back to the Golden State.

He also may be considering a run

for office—probably the gover-

norship—in 2018. If so, environ-

mentalism will be the Number

One theme of his self-funded

campaign. “The fight for justice

starts with climate,” he recently

observed.

If the past is any guide, a Steyer

governorship would be exceed-

ingly costly to California busi-

nesses. In 2012, he spent $30

million of his own money on a

successful initiative to hike taxes

by $1 billion on out-of-state firms

operating in California, with half

of the revenues from the tax

going to projects that promote

conservation and renewable

energy. California, burdened by



40


high taxes and labyrinthine regu-

lations, consistently ranks dead

last as a place to do business

in Chief Executive’s annual

survey of company executives.

Environmental policy plays a

huge role in the difficulties of

operating in the state, especially

for blue-collar industries. A 2014

study by Pepperdine University’s

Michael Shires found that,

thanks in part to the costs of

California’s global-warming law

and other regulations, manufac-

turers in the state must pay 40

percent above the national

average for electricity.

Small wonder that the recent

U.S. manufacturing revival has

largely bypassed the Golden

State. Though the country has

added 660,000 industrial jobs

over the last half-decade, Califor-

nia has managed to create a

meager 8,000 such positions

during that period—a 0.6 percent

rate of growth. By contrast, Texas

has generated 72,000 new indus-

trial jobs. “High energy costs

now make it too easy for out-of-

state companies to undercut

California manufacturers, take

away their customers and hurt

jobs,” says Dorothy Rothrock,

president of the California

Manufacturers and Technology

Association.

Even green firms are looking

elsewhere. Be Green Packaging,

a Santa Barbara recycling com-

pany, recently built a manufactur-

ing plant in South Carolina;

Biocentric Energy Holdings, a

Santa Ana energy company,

moved to Salt Lake City in 2011;

and Bing Energy, a fuel-cell

maker, relocated to Florida in

2011. “I just can’t imagine any

corporation in their right mind

would decide to set up in Califor-

nia today,” the company’s CFO

said. (See “Cali to Business: Get

Out!,” Autumn 2011.) And while

the revival of tech firms in the

last few years has produced lots

of high-paid white-collar Silicon

Valley jobs, tech companies are

sending their industrial and cus-

tomer-service work to less ex-

pensive locales. Intel, the Santa

Clara business that Gordon

Moore cofounded, built a $3 bil-

lion production facility in Arizona

in 2008. Google has built its

massive, energy-gobbling server

farms outside California, includ-

ing in cheaper Oregon. San Jose’s

eBay has been adding work in

Austin, Texas, since 2011, part of

a plan to expand by 1,000 jobs

there. In 2013, after years of

manufacturing exclusively over-

seas, Cupertino-based Apple de-

cided to build a new production

facility—in Texas. Apple is also

spending $2 billion to outfit a

new data center in Mesa, outside

Phoenix.

Having reshaped the Golden

State, California’s greens are now

financing the spread of the envi-

ronmentalist gospel to other

states and to Canada. In 2012,

for instance, a group of green

funders, powered by California

money, helped push on to Michi-

gan’s ballot the Michigan Renew-

able Energy Amendment, known

as Proposal 3, the aim of which

was to require that at least 25

percent of the state’s energy

come from renewable sources

by 2025. The face of Prop. 3 was

a local group, Michigan Energy–

Michigan Jobs, with a $4 million

campaign purse, according to

state campaign records. But

most of that money ($3.3 million)

came from a San Francisco entity,

the Green Tech Action Fund,

which, in turn, receives most of

its funding from its Frisco neigh-

bor, the giant Energy Founda-

tion—which gets much of its

money from Sea Change, the

Hewlett and Packard Founda-

tions, and ClimateWorks.

Notwithstanding the huge influx

of outside money, Prop. 3 went

down to defeat, earning just 38

percent of the Michigan vote.

Undeterred, California’s environ-

mentalist funders have also

helped finance initiatives in

Colorado to ban fracking and a

failed Nebraska effort to stop

the Keystone XL pipeline. The

Hewlett Foundation, Sea Change,

and another Bay Area group, the

Tides Foundation, have been

behind a decades-long effort to

stymie the development of vast

oil reserves in Alberta, Canada.

Americans in places like Michi-

gan and Nebraska have yet to

embrace the left-environmental-

ism preached by the green

activists—the antigrowth, fre-

quently antihuman notions of

deep ecology. But California is

different. It may be the first state

on the way to embracing deep

ecology as public policy—thanks

to the power of its green move-

ment, fueled by billions of dollars

earned in America’s pro-growth

free markets. •Reprinted from the City Journal,

www.city-journal.org, Spring

2015.


THESE WEA LTHYIND I V I DUA L SS P END MASS I V E LYTO PASS GREENBA L LOT IN I T I A -T I V E S AND E L ECTGREEN - F R I END LYPO LS .


W PA L E A D E R S H I P F O R 2 0 1 5 :

OFFICERS JOHN P ICC IU TO , P R ES I D ENTH Mueh l s t e i n & Co .

K EV IN K E L LY, V ICE P R ES I D ENTEme r a l d P a c k ag i n g

M ICHAE L HA I L F INGER , T R EASURE RINX I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n k Co .

CHANDL E R HADRABA , S ECRE TARYB r ad l e y P a c k ag i n g S y s t em s

BOARD OF DIRECTORS BRUCE CART E R G r ea t Ame r i c a n P a c k ag i n gS T EVE DES PA IN R e i f e n ha u s e rHARA LD GOEP P E RT Hud s o n - S ha r p Mach i n e Compan yROGER HEWSON Windmoe l l e r & Hoe l s c h e rRAY HUFNAGE L P l a s t i c E x p r e s sDAV ID MCK INNEY I SO P o l y F i l m sPAT R ICK MONTOYA New G r e e n Da yDAVE SHEW MAKER He r i t a g e BagP E T E R T YSZEWICZ Wes t e r n Con co r d M f g .

WPA TODAY published by:

Western Plastics Association1107 9th Street, Suite 930Sacramento, CA 95814

916.761.2829 Cell916.930.1938 [email protected]

Editor: Laurie Hansen

Disclaimer: Western Plastics Association (WPA) does not endorse or recommend other than those officially endorsed byWPA, any individual or companythat we mention in this newsletter.Any business conducted is between the member and the individual or company. Any state-ments made in this newsletter arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views ofWPA or its Board of Directors.

©2015 Western Plastics Association

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...

Documents

Transcript of THE NEWSLETTER OF THE WESTERN PLASTICS...