Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 1
A Plastic Policy that Protects the Oceans
California State University Maritime Academy
Erika Duarte Granados
December 16, 2018
Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 2
Introduction
I am working on the topic of plastic and microplastic that surrounds the state of
California. I am interested in researching the steps that California has taken in the attempt to reduce consumer plastics and how these steps compare to other government and non- governmental efforts. I want to see how policy experts use the knowledge that plastic and microplastic are negatively affecting our marine life. I am particularly interested in this topic because I believe it is essential to see this issue of plastics and microplastics as more than just an environmental concern. Therefore, I want to know what California is doing to combat this problem.
Plastics and microplastics pollution have become significant issues for the state of
California. The high demand for single-use plastic products has increased over the years, along with the negative impact to our environment caused by single-use plastic products. These polymers are widely utilized to make a range of industrial and consumer products. Between 1950 and 2015, average plastic production increased from 2 Million tons (Mt) to 380 Mt (Geyer,
Jambeck, & Law, 2017). California uses approximately 16 billion plastic bags per year; this equals more than 400 annually per person (Environment California Research and Policy Center,
2018.) What steps is California taking to reduce consumer plastics and how do these compare to other government and non-governmental efforts?
The impact of plastics pollution has been felt across the world, but California is one of the most affected areas because of its coastline stretch. With 75% of its 39 million residents occupying the state’s 1,100-mile coastline, it is not surprising that California sets the standard for discussion regarding pollution dynamics and efforts to combat the effects of marine debris Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 3
(Stevenson, 2011). Because of the ubiquity of plastics and microplastics, new scientific research has focused on plastic marine debris and cleanup efforts. Most plastic and microplastic produced on land ends up in the sea: 60–80% of waste on a marine island is plastics (Stevenson, 2011).
Scientists estimate that it may take thousands of years for plastic to degrade. Apart from plastics which were incinerated, all plastic manufactured since the early 1950s is still present.
Today, we are witnessing the drastic impact of this problem in marine organisms and the environment. Plastics and microplastics are affecting the food chain by weakening our food supply. Studies have also found microplastics in the human body, where they affect human health. California has responded to this problem by implementing new policies like Senate Bill
270 (2013-2014) that try to change consumer behavior around plastic consumption.
Thesis Statement and Research Questions
The case study explored in this paper includes three states using different methods to address the plastics and microplastics problem. California has introduced a bill taxing consumer for single-use plastics. Hawaii has banned single-use plastics, and Delaware provides more recycling bins in public areas to encourage recycling. State governments are not alone in this fight against single-use plastics and microplastics; numerous non-governmental organizations have taken a stand to solve this problem. The following questions will be explored throughout this paper: Is California heading in the right direction when it comes to single-use plastics? Are all policies effective? Who is being affected during these changes?
This thesis will discuss a variety of sources to define its argument and deliver its conclusion that single-use plastics and microplastics are indeed harming human and marine species and on a grander scale affecting our ocean environment. Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 4
The impact of plastics and microplastics on California is a fundamental problem. The first synthetic plastic has been around for about 111 years (since 1907) and is known as the
Bakelite (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). As of 2017, more than 328 million tons of plastic are produced each year, with an average annual increase in production of 4% (Walsh, 2017). Approximately
500 billion single-use plastics are used yearly, yet only 5% make it into the recycling cycle. Of this, approximately 48 billion water bottles are used by Americans annually (Walsh, 2017). 80% of ocean plastics come from land-based sources and only 20% from marine use (Ritchie &
Roser, 2018). A group of experts predicted in a 2016 study that by 2050 the weight of plastics in the oceans would exceed that of fish (Walsh, 2017).
Microplastics are found in the water of lakes and seas, exposing marine organisms.
Microplastics are also found in the sediment of rivers and deltas, exposing humans to water contamination, and has been found in the stomachs of different organisms ranging from zooplankton to whales (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2016). “Plastics Threaten the
Ocean” explains that microplastics are particles less than 0.2 inches in size (Walsh, 2017).
Walsh’s (2017) article and “What Are Microplastics?” says these microbeads play an essential role in micro-pollution of the ocean (National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, 2018).
The United Nations Environmental Programme study showed that microbeads are not a new problem but have been around for about fifty years (United Nations Environmental Programme,
2016). Both articles note that microbeads are found in cosmetics products, toothpaste, and cleansing products. The more we learn about it, the larger the problem appears.
Background
Plastic Definitions Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 5
There are two types of plastics, grouped into two separate polymers. A polymer is a substance composed of many monomers coming together, a process called polymerization. Some polymers come from naturally occurring materials, while others are synthetic. The first is thermoplastic (natural). This kind of plastic softens on heating and hardens again when cooled.
The second type is thermoset (synthetic), which diminish under any conditions (Science History
Institution, 2016).
The most common plastic used today is synthetic plastic made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP), fossil fuel, and resin ID code no. 2 (Science
History Institution, 2016). Consumer plastic bags, packaging plastics, and most plastic containers and bottles are made out of polyethylene. Synthetic plastic is estimated to take from 450 to 1,000 years to decompose.
On average, the lifespan of a single-use plastic bag from the point of sale to a destination is 12 minutes (NSW EPA, 2016). Single-use bags are relevant to plastic pollution because of their high demand from consumers. Plastic bags have become part of the typical once-a-week grocery store trip for citizens around the world. Consumers expect free plastic bags when purchasing groceries, retail shopping, and sometimes on restaurant outings without realizing the problem that comes with the single-use plastic bag. In a recent study by Montgomery County,
MD, grocery bags accounted for 70% of bags distributed (Wagner, 2017).
We are now facing a new level of plastic pollution at the micro level. Microplastics come from big broken-down pieces of plastics and cosmetics. There are two types of microplastics, primary and secondary. Primary microplastics are manufactured to be small, such as virgin resin pallets, and melted down to create plastic products. Microbeads are also classified as a primary type because they are designed for use in cosmetics and personal care products. Secondary Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 6 microplastics come from large plastics that break down naturally over time in the environment as sunlight, wave action on the beach, and other physical forces act on these items (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2018).
Impacts of Plastics and Microplastics
Effects of Plastic and Microplastic on Animals
Recently, various researchers across the world have revealed alarming information about environment pollution from plastics. According to studies done in Europe, the global production of plastic bags rose from 1.5 million tons of waste in the 1950s to approximately 275 million tons of waste by the year 2010, with developing countries recording the highest amount of air and land pollution (Álvarez, Barros, & Velando, 2018). In comparison with other materials, plastics have affected many plants, animals, and birds. Though there is little formal research on the effects of plastic pollution on terrestrial plants and animals, studies done on various species of plants and animals have indicated that land animals ingest plastic. Raccoons and wild dogs, for instance, are often seen scavenging in garbage dumps (Debroas, Mone, & Ter Halle, 2017).
Research conducted on these animals has revealed that they accidentally ingest plastics, thinking they are food. More often, animals become entangled with plastic bags, rings, or jars.
The terrestrial aspects of plastics pollution are quite evident in the daily lives of humans.
There are many reports of drainage systems becoming clogged with plastic bags, film, and other debris from various farms (Kärrman, Schönlau, & Engwall, 2016). The effects of plastic and microplastic can be seen in multiple animal kingdoms. Most terrestrial infection of plastic comes from increasing waste dump sites, which are synonymous with urban settlements. The scavenging poor are affected most because they live near disposal areas for plastics bags
(Kärrman, Schönlau, & Engwall, 2016). Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 7
Plastic impact on land animals is notable because of the harm to the land-based food chain. Human survival depends on land animals as much as on marine animals. As mentioned above, terrestrial animals consume plastic from land pollution. One example of a terrestrial animal that consumes food from both land and ocean is a bird. A bird that consumes plastic on land can be eaten by giant trevally when flying over the ocean. The giant trevally will then digest the same plastic waste the bird consumed before being eaten. Plastic indeed affects the food chain across terrestrial and marine animals.
Plastics and Microplastics Harming the Marine Environment
Oceans are downstream, so they receive a lot of the plastic waste generated on land.
Millions of tons of debris end up in the oceans annually. This litter is mostly composed of plastics. In 2014, a study examining oceanographic maps was published. The study aimed to show the number of surface plastics found in global oceans. It found that there were 244,000 tons of plastic particles floating on the surface of the seas (Koelmans, Gouin, Thompson, Wallace, &
Arthur, 2014). Plastic materials in the marine environment are likely to kill marine mammals by entangling them. Fishing gear is an example of an object that kills marine mammals through trapping. These aquatic species can also be destroyed through consumption of food with plastic wrapping that is mistakenly dumped into the marine environment. All marine species, including seabirds, marine sea turtles, zooplankton, and large cetaceans, often ingest items such as plastic bags, cigarette lighters, and bottle caps.
Plastics contain pollutants that concentrate in seawater, which affects marine animals since the objects are usually indigestible. Marine wildlife is exposed to great danger, as reported by the 2014 oceanographic study. The marine debris harmful to marine life consists of mostly processed solid materials that are discarded in the marine environment. These solid materials Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 8 include textiles, rubber, wood, paper, metals, glass, and plastics. Most deaths experienced by marine mammals resulting from ingestion of plastics include infection, suffocation, starvation, or drowning (Koelmans, Gouin, Thompson, Wallace, & Arthur, 2014). Research shows that most seabirds have plastic pieces in their stomachs. Seabirds that are used to feeding on floating plastics tend to feed them to their chicks (Koelmans, Gouin, Thompson, Wallace, & Arthur,
2014). A 2014 study found that 98% of females sampled contained a plastic object in their stomachs. This problem has increased with time due to the increase in industrialization that leading to a growth in the number of plastic materials emptied into the marine environment.
Marine species living in greater depths are also significantly affected by plastic pollution. This is illustrated in samples taken by Scottish Association's scientists based on marine science. The findings showed that 48% of creatures in the marine environment at 6,500-foot depth had plastic objects in their stomachs. These materials mostly consisted of polyesters and polyethylene, which are usually from clothing and shopping bags (Seltenrich, 2015). The plastics found in marine environments have been accumulating slowly since the 1960s. They have formed large plastic floating masses in the oceans. The large plastic pieces have been causing havoc to the marine environment.
The microplastics associated with marine pollution are from cosmetic products and other household materials, such as items designed for scrubbing and cleaning. These microplastics are usually washed into water systems, contaminating marine life. Microplastics together with nurdles—small pellets of plastic made for the manufacture of plastic products—are likely to end up in the ocean due to accidental spills that are a result of mishandling (Seltenrich, 2015). These small plastics are then ingested by marine wildlife. These microplastics are very toxic to marine species since they contain chemicals usually released in the ocean as waste products and end up Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 9 becoming concentrated in the food chain. The microplastics are collectively composed of fibers, small plastic fragments, and granules. According to Cressey, the microplastics vary in size
(Cressey, 2016). The microplastics are categorized as primary and secondary. The primary microplastics are usually microscopic and from facial cleansers. They are likely to cause death to marine species. Microplastics used in air blast media and cosmetics are likely to find their way into the oceans through systems of industrial drainage and domestic waterways. For instance, washing machines are associated with the release of microplastics into the aquatic environment.
Plastic pollutes the aquatic environment by interfering with the bio-geo cycle, which eventually interferes with the entire marine ecosystem. This poses a great danger to aquatic life, from the small fish to the largest ones. Consumption of indigestible plastic pieces by marine animals creates digestive problems, which can cause death due to intestinal injury. Some marine animals are even likely to become extinct due to plastics pollution in the marine environment
(Wilcox, Mallos, Leonard, Rodriguez, & Hardesty, 2016). This creates hazardous health conditions for human beings, also. Oceanic currents tend to accumulate plastic materials in high concentrations in various parts of the ocean. This plastic pollution invades non-indigenous marine species and different organisms.
One specific example of this plastic problem is reflecting on sea turtles. Because of plastics durability, persistence and high demand, plastic debris has been and continues to be a global environmental problem. For example, sea turtles unlike any other marine organism get tangled in plastics or, even worse, consume plastics and are not able to digest these products. For a sea turtle, a plastic bag flooding in the water can look very much like a jellyfish. More often than not this is the case when sea turtles consume plastic bags, causing sea turtles to choke and sadly die. Sea turtles don't necessarily have to eat plastic to be affected, but they can get tangled Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 10 in a six-pack plastic ring, limiting the growth of the organism. This problem is also limiting sea turtle reproduction, potentially causing this species to become extinct in the near future.
Figure 1: Effect of Plastic Pollution on Sea Turtles
Figure 1: Shows the different way plastic harms sea turtles and limits their growth.
Figure 2: Plastic Debris in Maritime Environments
Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 11
Figure 2: This figure shows how a single-use plastic bag degrades over time. The image illustrates how plastic moves around under water.
California, Hawaii, and Delaware’s Environmental Policies on Plastics
California has responded to this problem by becoming the first state to enact legislation imposing a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags at large retail stores (National Coalition of
State Legislatures, 2018). With this bill, consumers are required to pay a 10-cent minimum for recycled paper bags, reusable plastic bags, and compostable bags at certain establishments. The law took effect on July 1, 2015, under Senate Bill 270.
On October 08, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed California State Bill AB 888. This bill prohibits the sale of personal care products that contain microbeads (California Legislature
Information, 2015). This ban will take effect on January 1, 2020 (Murdock, 2015). The AB 888 ban will require companies to search for natural alternatives to microbeads such as apricot and jojoba seeds, walnut shells, or rice bran.
Honolulu, Big Island, Kauai, Maui, and Pala, Hawaii, have banned the use of single-use bags with Bill 59 (City & County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, n.d.).
The purpose of this bill is to eliminate plastic bags offered to consumers. To encourage customers to stop using plastic bags, the State of Hawaii started a bring-your-own (BYOB reusable) bag movement.
The state of Delaware requires stores to meet further requirements, for example, in-store recycling of plastic carryout bags, and they must complete a form provided by the government of
Delaware (Delaware Plastic Bag Survey, 2018). Delaware’s strategy is to encourage its residents to recycle.
As stated by the California Ocean Protection Council (n.d.), California became the first state to enact a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags. This action is leading California in the Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 12 right direction, according to Governor Jerry Brown. California is the first state moving toward green choices in the United States. The City of San Francisco is working to ban plastic straws due to their toxicity and contribution to litter around the city (McGraby, 2018). However, not everyone agrees on straws being part of the plastics problem; researcher Kerry Jackson disagrees with the straw ban (McGraby, 2018). Jackson believes that straws are necessary for some people to consume food. However, if more cities can agree that plastics and microplastics pose a significant problem, California can make more significant progress sooner.
California’s Environmental Policy on Plastics
The following section will in detail explain the new bills adopted by the State of
California. Since 2015 we have experienced some attempts to change the way single-use plastics have been used in California. California has passed Senate Bill 270: Solid Waste: single-use carryout bags, Assembly Bill 888: Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law, Assembly Bill
1884: Single-use Plastic Straws, and Senate Bill 1335: Sustainable Packaging. However, this section also will explore the bills not approved by Governor Brown. For example, Assembly Bill
2779: Recycling: Single-use plastic beverage container caps, Assembly Bill 2379: Waste
Management: Plastic microfiber, and Senate Bill 836: State beaches: Smoking Ban. In addition to exploring non-governmental organizations and their roles in the legislature.
Public Resources Code of 1939
The Public Resources Code of 1939, created under the direction of the California Code
Commission, consolidated and revised the law relating to natural resources and conservation, along with mining, oil and gas, and forestry (Legislative Intent Service, Inc., n.d.). Three policies have been added to the Public Resources Code and three that were not added. This section will Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 13 include the Assembly and Senate bills, along with their impacts on the plastic and microplastic problems in California.
Senate Bill 270
Senate Bill 270: Solid Waste: Single-use carryout bags, introduced by Senate Member
Alex Padilla and approved by Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2014. This bill is an addition to the Public Resources Code, Section 1, Chapter 5.3. This law was implemented after
July 1, 2015, and prohibits large stores with a specified amount of sales in dollars or a certain amount of retail floor space from providing a single-use carryout bag to customers. The law further prohibits stores from distributing a recycled paper bag unless the customer chooses to purchase one for 10 cents ( California Legislative Information, n.d.).
This regulation attempted to address the massive amount of single-use plastic bags that end up in the ocean. It has helped California lead a country into a more environmentally friendly future. Studies have shown that most single-use plastic bags end up being consumed by marine wildlife; this law is trying to address the harm caused to marine wildlife and our ecosystem.
According to the Environment California Research & Policy Center (2018):
“In June 2011, researchers at UC San Diego’s Scripps Institute of Oceanography published a study finding that nearly one in ten small fish collected in the middle of the Pacific Ocean had plastic in their bodies. The researchers estimated that fish are eating as much as 24,000 tons of plastic each year and that the plastic enters the food chain through small fish.”
In search of a solution, California adopted Senate Bill 270. According to StopWaste, a public agency dedicated to reducing waste in Alameda County, there has been an 80% reduction in the number of single-use plastic bags (O’Mara, 2017). The senior program manager Meri Soll and team conducted a study in a store parking lot. They sat outside a parking lot and “watched the Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 14 consumers go out, how many bags did they have, what types of bags? Did they not have bags?”
Following that:
“And a year after, the ordinance, they went back to those same stores at the same time and counted again. What they found was that twice as many people are bringing their bags and almost three times as many just don't take a bag at all. The significant differences have been that people are no longer taking bags when they buy one or two items, double-bagging items or taking extra free bags. (O’Mara, 2017)
They found that since Alameda County banned single-use plastic bags, the amount of people using single-use plastic bags has decreased (O’Mara, 2017). This study further attests that
Californians are not paying to use a plastic bag every time they go to the store and shows that this law is reaching its goal.
The following chart was made by Stop Waste and illustrates the 2017 study results by
Soll based on purchase data from 69 chain stores in the county. The stores that shared data also stated a reduction by 40 million bags, from 50 million bags each year to now only 10 million, including both plastic and paper bags. The number of plastic bags went from 37 million to 2 million (O’Mara, 2017).
Figure 2: Change in single-use bag usage in Alameda County from 2012-2015 Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 15
Figure 1: This chart illustrates the amount of single-use plastic bags decreased in use since SB 270 (2013-2014). 2013 (before law 270) the amount of paper and plastic bag was extremely high to year 2015 (third year implementing law 270). The chart is from three years ago, yet it is very explicit on the drastic change that this law accomplished in three years.
As illustrated in the above chart, it is safe to say that the California state policy is effective in reducing the number of single-use plastic bags. However, an attempt to eliminate all single-use plastic bags is a future option in the state of California.
Assembly Bill 888
Assembly Bill 888: Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Prevention Law was introduced by
Assembly Member Richard Bloom and approved by Governor Jerry Brown on October 08, 2015.
This bill is an addition to the Public Resources Code, Section 1, Chapter 5.9. After January 1,
2020, personal care products containing plastic microbeads are forbidden for sale in California Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 16
(California Legislative Information, 2015). However, this does not apply to products that contain plastic microbeads in the amount of less than 1 part per million (ppm) by weight.
This bill attempts to address the plastic problem at a micro level. According to the 5
Gyres Institute, one tube of facial scrub can contain more than 330,000 plastic microbeads, contributing to the accumulation of 8 billion plastic microbeads each day in the United States alone and 471 million microbeads released into the San Francisco Bay daily (5 Gyres Institute,
2018). California is leading the way concerning environmental protection by being one of few states to ban personal care products that contain microbeads. As expected, there is a division between supporters and nonsupporters of this new ban. Some companies believe this ban will directly impact the manufacturing of care products that contain microbeads.
Companies like Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and Dove are affected by this law, yet the demand for all-natural care products is increasing. Alternatives for microbeads are apricot pits, sea salt, and ground-up almonds. One company that has increased sales is Lush Cosmetics. This company has partnered with 5 Gyres Institute in the United States and Ottawa Riverkeeper in
Canada to encourage customers to purchase all-natural products and invite them to sign petitions against microbead-containing care products (Lush Cosmetics, 2018). The law allowed a shift in the popularity of microbead products and all-natural products, reducing the amount of microbeads entering the ocean.
Assembly Bill 1884
Assembly Bill 1884: Single-Use Plastic Straws was introduced by Assembly Member Ian
Calderon and approved by Governor Jerry Brown on September 20, 2018. This bill is an addition to the Public Resources Code, Section 1, Chapter 5.2. Taking immediate effect, it states that a full-service restaurant cannot provide a single-use plastic straw unless requested by the consumer Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 17
(California Legislative Information, 2017). The purpose of this law is to create awareness of the harmful effects single-use plastic straws have on landfills, waterways, and oceans. Reducing the number of plastic straws used daily will reduce the amount of plastic entering the ocean. This ban has been implemented in areas like Alameda. The cities of Davis and San Luis Obispo passed similar restrictions in 2017 and reported spending less money on straws (Wallin &
Klarich, 2018).
There are speculations that approximately half a billion plastic straws are used every day for items such as takeout sodas, Frappuccino’s, smoothies, cold-pressed juices, and other beverages in California. Starbucks is getting rid of plastic straws in 28,000 Starbucks locations and adopting plastic lids designed for use without needing a straw (Starbucks, 2018). Most
Starbuck drinks need a straw, whereas a restaurant customer has the choice to use a straw. There is a record of a decrease in the manufacturing of straws in the Alameda County (O'Mara, 2017).
These are some of the results of this law. If this law accomplishes its purpose, there will be a decrease in the number of plastic straws in the ocean, which will reduce harm in the marine ecosystem.
Senate Bill 1335
Senate Bill 1335 Sustainable Packaging for the State of California Act of 2018 was introduced by Senator member Ben Allen and approved by Governor Jerry Brown on September
20, 2018. This bill is an addition to the Public Resources Code, Section 1 Chapter 6, taking effect on or before January 1, 2021. The bill states that the departments involved should adopt regulations to establish a process, and develop criteria, for determining types of food service packaging that are reusable, recyclable or compostable (Bill Text-SB-1335). However, The
California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) and Coalition are opposing SB 1335 unless it is Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 18 revised. They believe this bill will hurt California manufacturers, increases coast for stage agencies and restaurants, and randomly picks winners and losers in the marketplace (Regele,
2018). As some businesses do not fully support this Senate bill, other organizations fully support it. Moreover, a shared responsibility approach is needed, from the manufactured and the consumer. The manufacturer can meet a limited regulation when creating recyclable, compostable, or reusable food packaging but the consumer can meet the simple requirement of ensuring the product is either recycled or composted. This bill is key to ending plastic pollution.
Assembly Bill 2779
Assembly Bill 2779: Recycling: Single-use plastic beverage container caps, was introduced by Assemblymembers Mark Stone and Ian Calderon (coauthored with
Assemblymember Richard Bloom) on February 16, 2018. This served as a new version of
Assembly Bill 319 and was passed by Committee but never review by the Assembly floor. The status of this new Assembly Bill 2779 is inactive at the request of Mark Stone. This bill would require single-use plastic bottles for beverages to include a lid tethered to the container in a way that will prevent separation of the cap from the container (Bill Text- AB- 2779). The bill shows a commitment to reduce the number of loose caps found at beaches that make their way into the ocean and end up in marine and human food chains. This bill has the potential to change the way we see a single-use plastic water bottle.
Assembly Bill 2379
Assembly Bill 2379: Waste Management: Plastic microbeads introduced by
Assemblymember Richard Bloom (coauthors: Assemblymembers Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher and
Mark Stone). The status of this assembly bill is inactive at the request of Assemblymember
Richard Bloom. This bill would require an additional label informing the consumer when Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 19 clothing that contains more than 50 percent synthetic material and is, therefore, recommended to be hand-washed instead of machine washed (Crouch Dorthy, 2018). According to Ilse Metchek, president of the California Fashion Association, this bill would affect every retailer, large and small and will create issues for sourcing, distribution and manufacturing partnerships (Crouch
Dorthy, 2018).
California is not the only state looking into reducing microfiber pollution caused by some clothing materials. New York's Assembly Bill 10599 requires all clothing sold in the state that is manufactured with more than the 50 percent synthetic materials to have an additional labeling tag. This proves that more and more states are aware of this issue and, like New York (approved bill) and California (not approved), are moving in the right direction. If Californian Assembly
Bill 2379 passes in the near future, it will reduce the amount of microfiber entering the ocean and affecting the marine ecosystem.
Senate Bill 836
Senate Bill 836: State beaches: smoking ban introduced by Senator Steven Glazer, with principal coauthor Assemblymember Marc Levine and coauthors Senator Ben Allen and
Assemblymembers Catherine Baker, Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, and Mark Stone (Bill Text- SB-
836). Governor Brown vetoed SB 836 and other bills on this issue including AB 1097 and SB
835. The following was Governor Brown's message:
“I am returning the following bills without my signature: 1097, SB 835 and SB 836. These bills prohibit smoking in state parks, on state beaches, and at any picnic area on a state beach and require the Department of Parks and Recreation to post signs to notify the public of the smoking ban. I have vetoed similar measures in each of the last two years. Third time is not always a charm. My opinion on the matter has to changed. We have many rules telling us what we can’t do, and these are wide open spaces.” -(SB-836, Status)
Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 20
The statement by Governor Brown shows his commitment to sign bills that fit everyone's needs.
As it would be ideal to entirely ban this action to avoid cigarette buds in the ocean, we must also consider the people who enjoy smoking. His statement shows that although there is the need to reduce plastic and trash at beaches, he is well aware that a ban will affect some residents.
Non-Governmental Efforts
Apart from government-based efforts such as legislation to reduce the number of micro- plastics in Californian marine ecosystems, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) have also played a critical role in extending the government efforts. The following are some of the NGOs whose contributions in ocean conservancy are deemed crucial.
California Ocean Science Trust (COST): This is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) communal benefit organization created in 2004 with the core intention of promoting synchronized, multi- agency and multi-organization efforts to understanding and using ocean science to administration and policy. Its offices are situated in Oakland, California. It aims at bringing together the government, scholars, and the community at large using science to influence decisions about ocean conservancy and its future. As stated in their website, the NGO’s relationship with the government was solemnized by the California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act (CORSA) of
2010. It is this act that stipulated how the NGO is run although the NGO is independent in the decisions it makes (California Ocean Science Trust, 2018). COST works closely with coastal agencies in supporting the government’s policies in maintaining healthy, resilient, and productive oceans for the benefit of current and future generations by convening and managing their science advisory teams (California Ocean Science Trust, 2018).
The Surfrider Foundation: This non-governmental organization was founded in
California in 1984 with the intention of fighting and protecting the oceans and beaches of not Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 21 only in the state of California but throughout the United States of America (Surfrider
Foundation, 2018). Since the corporation is a grassroot conservancy group, it has a powerful network which coordinates its activities in protecting the coasts and oceans by advocating and facilitating water testing, community partnerships, and cleaning the beaches among many other functions. Through their Ocean Friendly program, The Surfrider Foundation aims to reduce the use of single-use plastic products in Californian restaurants based on the effects of such products on the rivers and oceans. Through this program, the organization offers restaurants friendly ways of showing commitment to maintaining sustainable choices for Californian oceans. Through the organization’s Rise Above Plastics program, the group also aims at creating awareness and educating the general public on appropriate measures to reduce the amount of plastic pollution in
Californian marine ecosystems (Surfrider Foundation, 2018).
The 5 Gyres Institute: It began as a family venture, founded by Marcus Eriksen and Anna
Cummins, a California-based couple. The couple’s vision of co-founding the 5 Gyres Institute was to fight the ugly plastic pollution evident in California’s oceans through public sensitization, application of science and art, and outdoor related activities. Since its inception, the corporation has achieved much, including the 2015 plastic ban for which the organization successfully advocated. This ban included all plastic microbeads that are used in skin care products and other personal care products that are used across the United States of America (Mason et al., 2016).
The organization has also been recognized by the United Nations Economic and Social Council as a good consultative agency on matters related to the environmental conservancy.
The Clear Blue Sea Group: This is a relatively new NGO based in San Diego, California.
It is actively working to reduce plastics in the oceans by recycling and re-using plastics which it collects by employing innovative approaches such as the Floating Robot for Eliminating Debris Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 22 dubbed “FRED." The Clear Blue Sea group is involved in cleaning up the debris in seas, using renewable energy, and rescuing animals that have been trapped in sea debris (Rapitim, 2018).
Delaware's Environmental Policy on Plastics
While California was the first state to introduce a plastic bag ban, other states have followed, such as Delaware. Instead of paying 10 cents for a bag, Delaware encourages customers to recycle single-use plastic bags. The previous Governor of Delaware, Jack Markell, adopted new legislation which aimed to promote recycling of plastic products statewide. The legislation became effective on December 1st, 2009. This new law required all stores in Delaware with a minimum of seven-thousand square feet dedicated to business premises or those with at least three branches in Delaware to adopt an in-store recycling program for plastic products. The law also stated that retail stores should provide an alternative such as reusable plastic bags for purchase and include awareness creating messages to encourage their customers and plastic users to recycle and reuse plastic bags.
By adopting this bill into law, the State of Delaware was the third after California and
New York to have adopted a mandatory plastic bags recycling program. However, the signing and adoption of this law marked the end of the state’s involvement with the reduction of plastic.
Plastic continues to disturb most of the state’s landscapes and water sources. This has led to damage the communities, increasing expenses on the taxpayer and more expenses on the recycling of such products (UNEP, 2018).
This section will explore the many policies that the state of Delaware has adopted to reduce single-use bags, plastic, and microplastics, with a unique inclusion of failed bills (those that failed to be adopted or passed by the government) and why they failed. Later on, we will Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 23 delve into some of the efforts by Non-Governmental Organizations in relieving the state from the plastics dilemma (Axelsson & Sebille, 2017).
House Bill Number 15:
House Bill Number 15, a proposed amendment to chapter 60 of the 7th Title of the
Delaware policy involving recycling and reduction waste. This Bill was sponsored into the 145th
General Assembly of the House of Representatives by Representative Valerie Longhurst and
Senator Harris McDowell with the intention of amending Title 7 of the Delaware Code on Waste
Reduction. The amendments were based on the following criteria: that the production and use of plastic bags exhibit significant global environmental effects each year including numerous deaths of marine organisms as well as land animals who feed on them, close to one trillion bags are used throughout the world; most of which end up into the streets and water catchment points, a bigger percentage of these bags are indigestible by the earth hence end up breaking down into smaller bits which pollute the soil and water points leading ingestion by humans and animals, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has approximated that less than five percent of the bags were recycled by the end of 2005 (Axelsson & Sebille, 2017).
Based on the facts, the sponsors of the bill felt it necessary to add Subchapter 6 onto
Chapter 60 of the 7th Title of the Delaware Plastics Policy. The primary purpose of this bill was to encourage the use of reusable bags by both retailers and buyers and as a result, reduce the use of single-use plastics which pose harmful health implications to the environment and its inhabitants.
The bill provided that every retail store should establish an “at-store” recycling program to allow buyers to return plastic bags to the store once they are done with ferrying their products from the store. By this, every store was mandated to place a plastic bag collection bin at a point Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 24 outside the store premises to enable customers to return them with ease. Plastic bag manufacturers would also be required to provide educational messages to buyers to sensitize them on the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle those bags, hence the need to return them to the stores for the same reason. The bill also prohibited any activity related to the manufacture and use of plastic bags contrary to the guidelines provided by the bill and imposed a civil liability to be paid to DNREC as appropriate.
House Bill Number 198:
House Bill Number 198, a proposed amendment to the 7th Title of the Delaware Code regarding recycling and reduction of waste. This Bill was sponsored by Representative Gerald
Brady, Representative Valerie Longhurst, and Senator Harris McDowell during the 147th
General Assembly with the intention of extending the 2009 sunset provision for three more years
(from its recorded expiry date on 2014 to 2017). This, therefore, meant that the sunset provision was to continue being effective until December 1, 2017, if any other legislation could not suffice to alter the dates thereof.
House Bill Number 215:
House Bill Number 215, a proposed amendment to the 7th Title (6099A) of the Delaware
Code concerning re-usage and reduction of waste. This Act was presented to the 149th General
Assembly and passed in 2017 by Representative Valerie Longhurst and Senator Harris
McDowell, requiring all retail stores to register with the department by June 30, 2018, in order to declare their compliance with the provisions of the section. Generally, the bill eliminated the sunset provision on the “at-store” plastic recycling program which was established in 2009 (as illustrated above) and included the sunset program provision until 2014 and prior to its expiry, the General Assembly extended its timeline until 2017 (Axelsson & Sebille, 2017). This bill Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 25 therefore permanently eliminates this provision in order to encourage the continued routine for consumers to recycle plastic bags through existing “at-store” programs.
House Bill Number 202:
House Bill Number 202, a proposed amendment of the 7th Title of the Delaware policy relating to Recycling and Reduction Waste. This bill was sponsored into the 148th General
Assembly by Representative Deborah Hudson and Gerald Brady and Senators Harris McDowell and Cathy Cloutier with the intention of placing a five-cent fee on plastic carryout bags at large retail stores. While the bill passed in the House Natural Resources Committee on a unanimous vote, it did not pass when it was presented to the General Assembly (Axelsson & Sebille, 2017).
This bill was an expansion of the House Bill Number 15 and provided that for every single carry-out bag used by a customer, the customer would remit a five-cent service fee to the store. This was meant to become effective on December 2, 2016. For anyone violating the rule, a penalty would be applied. House Bill Number 202 failed to be passed by the 148th General
Assembly of Delaware's House of Representatives despite the fact that it had extended bi- partisan support because of its implication on the citizenry.
Non-Governmental Efforts
Non-governmental organizations play a significant role in the fight to eliminate single- use bags, plastics, and microplastics in Delaware. Their efforts have played a significant impact in reducing the negative implications that marine microplastics have on the health of the people and the aquatic species. In line with this, the following are the NGO's involved in the process of fighting the problem of marine microplastics.
Delaware Sea Grant is a university & college-funded programs that promote the wise use, management and conservation of the coastal and marine resources located in Delaware. For over Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 26 the last forty years, Delaware Sea Grant has been involved in the fight against marine plastics and microplastics through various ways such as partnering and working together with
Delaware’s community with a view to effecting positive change, finding scientific researches in order to determine the critical issues that marine plastics have on the coastal environment, building partnerships with other stakeholders as well as educating and sensitizing the community about the consequences of releasing plastics and microplastics into the marine resources
(Delaware, 2018).
Through research projects, Delaware Sea Grant collects water samples from selected marine stations such as Bombay Hook, Southern, and Central Delaware, New Jersey and Cape
May, among others. In return, the organization analyzes the collected water samples and determines the number of plastics and microplastics that are being released into the marine resources. Consequently, the information informs the surrounding community as well as governmental organizations and other NGOs about the negative consequences and implications of releasing plastics and microplastics. This information is also used to help marine quality regulators and other concerned parties to formulate strategies leading to the eradication of the problem (Delaware, 2018).
Delaware Sea Grant is also involved in education and sensitization programs that are aimed at informing the community on the importance of conserving and managing marine resources wisely. For example, the organization has initiated numerous opportunities for teachers, students and the broader community of Delaware that have led to the development of the next generation of marine and coastal leaders. Moreover, Delaware Sea Grant has helped build active partnerships with federal agencies, the state, environmental non-profit organizations, Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 27 private citizens and the larger American community, hence allowing the organization to achieve its marine objectives (Delaware, 2018).
Oceana is spearheading efforts towards protecting and restoring the marine resources not only in Delaware but also in other marine regions across the world. The NGO achieves its objective by way of targeted policy campaigns that combine public pressure, law, and media in order to deal with the problem of ocean pollution. In addition, Oceana is involved in education and sensitization efforts that are aimed at informing the citizens of Delaware the US, and the world as a whole on the adverse consequences of polluting the oceans with plastics and microplastics. The organization is also involved in raising financial resources that are used to protect the oceans and marine resources (Oceana, 2018).
Hawaii’s Environmental Policy on Plastics
Unlike other states in the United States, Hawaii has, over time, adopted various bills with the ultimate intention of banning the use of indigestible plastic products across significant islands such as Maui, Honolulu, and the Big Island. For instance, in order to reduce plastic pollution, the state has implemented a groundbreaking ban on polystyrene containers which are mostly used by local industries in carrying food. This move makes the state one of the very first to ban the use of
Styrofoam food containers across the United States, and indeed across the globe (Cirino, 2018).
The state government and non-governmental institutions have adopted various measures throughout the counties which are aimed at cleaning the islands from plastics and micro-plastics.
This is in comparison to other states in the United States such as California where numerous efforts have been adopted in relation to the use of polystyrene but in vain.
Hawaii becomes the first case study throughout the world that has adopted stricter measures aimed at entirely banning the use of disposable plastic products in an equal measure Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 28 throughout the islands. However, the measures have been reinterpreted in differing capacities around Hawaii, with some islands approving the provision but with alterations to fit their people.
In the following section, we focus on the islands and delve into their efforts in dealing with the menace brought about by the use of plastics. This is because each island has adopted various individual measures to ensure that plastics and micro-plastics are reduced in a bid to abide by the guidelines of the state legislature (Cirino, 2018).
The Big Island was the first to adopt the ban through an act as passed by the House of
Representatives. However, on other islands such as Honolulu, Kauai, Maui, and Pala, legislators edited the bill to allow plastics of specific thickness and to be used within the islands. Such strict measures have been resorted to because plastic and micro-plastic products do not biodegrade, leading to pollution of beaches and the ocean beds. While underwater, the plastics are broken down and can be consumed by marine animals, leading to their death or other health hazards
(Capitol, 2018).
Plastic Bag Reduction Ordinance Number 3587
In Maui Island, the plastic bag reduction regulation was presented to the council by
Council Member Michael Molina in 2011 with the intention of banning plastic bags at checkout.
In this regard, shoppers and citizens were advised to walk with shopping bags (those that can be recycled or re-used) in order to avoid asking for plastic bags at checkout. Throughout the island, following the tabling of the ordinance in the House, environmental committees began to advocate for a cleaner and greener Maui by educating the citizens on the importance of bringing their own bags for shopping. Dominant among the reasons were to protect the environment by reducing the use of plastic bags and using reusable bags. This way, they could reduce the use of plastic bags which have proved hazardous to the environment (Capitol, 2018). Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 29
Honolulu Island also revised the Chapter Nine, Article Nine of the County ordinance to determine the kinds of bags that customers receive from their shop vendors in 2015. This revised version became effective from July 1st, 2015. The legislature made it mandatory for the
Department of Environmental Services of Honolulu to do everything within its jurisdiction for the ban to be implemented. Ordinance 12 – 8 of 2015 included a regulation that vendors must not give plastic bags to customers at checkout. This was aimed at reducing the supply and use of plastic and non-recyclable bags throughout the island. On July 1st, 2018, the Honolulu legislature amended the plastic bag ban in Ordinance 17 – 37. In these new revisions, vendors were accorded the mandate of charging a fee of 15 cents on every reusable and recyclable bag given to customers after shopping. This was adopted in a bid to teach shoppers the importance of bringing their own bags along with them while shopping to avoid further expenses. In a way, this edict helps to reduce the supply of bags in the county (Capitol, 2018).
In the sections to follow, we explore some of the general legislation adopted by the government through the House and Senate processes in regard to all the islands and later, some of the non-governmental efforts towards clean, habitable and plastic-free coastal beaches and oceans.
Hawaii House Bill 621:
Hawaii House Bill 621: Health, Environmental Protection, Synthetic Plastic Micro-beads, and Marine Life. This was a partisan bill introduced into the Hawaii House of Representatives by
Representatives Chris Lee, Cindy Evans, Mathew Lopresti, Nicole Lowen, Della Au Belatti,
Jarrett Kehokalole, and Sen. Karl Rhoads. The Bill gradually prohibits the use (both manufacture and sale) of personal care products, including beauty products and over the counter prescriptions and their packages, containing synthetic plastic micro-beads in a bid to protect aquatic life. If Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 30 passed, the legislation could have become effective from July 1st, 2053. The bill was not adopted due to its partisan nature. It was entirely advocated for by the Democrats. However, the Bill is under amendments (House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature, 2016).
Hawaii House Bill 2625/ Senate Bill 2964:
Hawaii House Bill 2625 and Senate Bill 2964: a bill for an Act Relating to
Environmental Protection (Capitol, 2018). This Bill was introduced in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate of Hawaii in 2018 with the sole intention of protecting the beaches and oceans in the state from plastic aquatic debris by demanding the Land and Natural
Resources Department to clean beaches of aquatic debris on a regular basis, and to dispose the solid wastes removed at permitted waste management systems. The Land and Natural Resources
Department has management, administration, and control over public land, water points, and coastal beaches, except for privately owned beaches. With this in mind, the legislature felt it was the department’s responsibility to clean these areas over which they own jurisdiction. This decision was arrived at based on the fact that cleaning the coastal areas of Hawaii’s water points had proved a difficult task and someone had to be held responsible (Capitol, 2018). This bill also advocated that a certain amount of money be set aside by the state government to aid the counties in the acquisition of the required cleaning equipment as well as the remuneration of additional workers in the Land and Natural Resources Department if these provisions were to be achieved (Capitol, 2018).
Section 1 of this bill acknowledges that the disposal of plastics and micro-plastics into
Hawaii’s marine resources and beaches impacts the environment negatively. This is exemplified by the death of bird populations and marine wildlife. The release of plastics and micro-plastics Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 31 into the water resources also leads to the poisoning of the food chain that the animals depend on thus resulting in a series of health problems.
Section 2 states that the Department of Land and Natural Resources shall be responsible for the removal and disposal of plastic and micro-plastics marine debris from the beaches and shores of Hawaii.
Section 3 states that the department shall coordinate its efforts with experts from other related NGO’s, other coastal states, as well as NOAA to ascertain the most effective and efficient removal strategies. The bill also directs the department to report to the legislature regarding the amount of plastic and micro-plastics debris removed from the beaches and shores (House of
Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature, 2018).
Section 4 states that the various counties of Hawaii are responsible for the removal and clearing of plastic debris from the beaches and shores within the state. The directives and regulations of all these sections are aimed at eradicating the irresponsible disposal of plastic and micro-plastics debris that have resulted in the deterioration of the water resources across the state
(Capitol, Hawaii Government Bills Session 2018: SB 2498, 2018).
This Bill has undergone, over time, numerous revisions; each bringing something new to its various sections. Section 46-1.5 was amended to become the General Powers and limitation of the counties and to state that each one of the counties shall adopt a chapter for individual governance and to establish the arms of government as deemed necessary. In this regard, the county governments were given the authority to define the duties and responsibilities of each of the arms so created. The counties were then given the authority to enforce ordinances which could aid them in preventing public nuisances and compel them to remove, or rather clean refuse Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 32 and any other uncultivated undergrowth from public areas, roadsides and unoccupied properties
(Capitol, 2018).
Section 46-12 was also amended to entail cleaning shores and beaches of seaweed, limu, and debris. Under this amendment, all counties were accorded the responsibility of removing and clearing all seaweed, limu, and debris that led to the unsanitary condition at the ocean beaches within respective counties (Capitol, 2018).
Hawaii House Bill 1937/ Senate Bill 2498:
Hawaii House Bill 1937 and Senate Bill 2498: Polystyrene Foam Products, Prohibition,
Disposal of Non-Recyclable Prepared Food Containers, and Litter Reduction. This Bill was introduced in both houses during the 29th Legislature of 2018 by Sen. Chang Riviere. The Bill was designed with the intention of prohibiting the sale of polystyrene foam containers as well as serving prepared foods using polystyrene foam containers throughout the state. The Bill further authorizes the Health Department to adopt means of implementing the regulations and also to include administrative measures for prepared food vendors to educate their customers in regard to appropriate disposal measures of the non-recyclable food containers (Capitol, Hawaii
Government Bills Session 2018: SB 2498, 2018).
The legislature arrived at this decision based on their findings that polystyrene foam is one of the common litter pollutions in the state of Hawaii. It is ultra-light, meaning that its collection is near to impossible, hence its accumulation on land and ultimately in waterways. It is a health hazard as it emits styrene, a scientifically known carcinogen, and other toxins which ultimately destroy the environment and the local food chain. It was also found that the menace caused by the scattering polystyrene products hinders the state's development in tourism. It also significantly contributes to the death of the vulnerable aquatic animals, most of which are sold Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 33 for revenue, apart from being the most preferable source of food by the citizens (Capitol, Hawaii
Government Bills Session 2018: SB 2498, 2018).
Non-Governmental Efforts
NGO’s are actively and directly involved in the fight to eradicate the disposal of single- use bags, micro-plastics, and plastics into Hawaii’s marine resources and the natural environment. The efforts of the non-governmental efforts come in the form of funding research studies, sensitizing the community of Hawaii on the adverse impact of plastics and micro-plastics and promoting environmental conservation efforts among others. In light of this, the following are some of the major NGO’s that are playing a leading role in the fight to eliminate the use of plastics and micro-plastics in Hawaii.
Some of the strategies through which Clear Sea Blue is involved in the fight against plastic and micro-plastics in Hawaii include the use of crowdfunding that aims to raise enough financial capital to design and develop the robot known as FRED (Floating Robot for
Eliminating Debris). The organization is also involved in sensitization and education outreach programs whose main aim is to educate Hawaii’s community on the importance of getting rid of plastics and micro-plastics from the environment. The organization also seeks funding and grants from the federal state, corporate organization and other philanthropic organizations so as to realize its goals and objectives. Clear Sea Blue intends to deploy the FRED prototypes not only in the marine resources in Hawaii but also in other water resources throughout the world. Such technological breakthrough will ensure that plastics and micro-plastics are removed from the oceans in real time, besides making the process wholly effective and efficient (Clear Sea Blue,
2018). Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 34
Plastic Soup Foundation is another nonprofit organization that is focused on securing the survival of the marine environment from the plastic problem that is regarded as the biggest and most destructive environmental crises. The organization provides resourceful educational materials and information on the adverse consequences of releasing plastics and micro-plastics debris into the water resources. The organization also encourages the community to play a leading role in the fight against plastics by actively involving itself in the removal activities
(Plastic Soup Foundation, 2018).
The Plastic Soup Foundation serves as knowledge center which provides people with information on the adverse effects of micro-beads and micro-plastics and how disposal of plastics into the oceans affects marine life, as well as the related health consequences. Most importantly, the foundation has come up with a program known as Playground Plastic Festival which aims to redesign the best strategies of reducing the disposal of plastics and micro-plastics and recycling and redesigning the plastic debris. This program intends to induce a process for people to think green. This would encourage citizens to focus on the solutions to the challenges of plastic and micro-plastics debris, rather than the challenges that the problem poses. Other programs that the organization has created to reduce the menace of plastics and micro-plastics debris include My Little Plastic Footprint, Ocean Clean Wash, Beat the Microbead, Balloons
Campaign, Plastic Supermarket, Plastic Urban Mining, Corporate Plastic Footprint, and Trash
Hunters (Plastic Soup Foundation, 2018).
Friends of the Earth aims to unite the people with a view to protecting the planet and its people. The organization proposes a new range of strategies that would allow not only the state of Hawaii but also the world to rid itself of the crisis of plastics and micro-plastics. For example, Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 35 the organization proposes the use of organic and sustainable methods in order to reduce or eliminate the dependency on plastics (Friends of the Earth, 2018).
Friends of the Earth raises money through online platforms for the purposes of enabling the organization to achieve its objective of securing the future of the people and the planet. Over the years, the funds trickling in through the donation efforts have allowed the organization to reduce the number of plastics and micro-plastics from the earth (Friends of the Earth, 2018).
Universities are also not left behind in addressing the problems caused by the use of plastics and micro-plastics. The University of Hawaii, for instance, is currently leading a number of studies in a bid to find out the scientific effect of micro-plastics on the environment. As Sarah
Jeanne-Royer found in research findings published in Live Science and PLOS One, micro- plastics emit greenhouse gases when exposed to ultraviolet rays, and the emission continues even in darkness. These gases directly affect sea level, cause global warming, causes flooding, drought, and even erosion. The University research team is currently working on a report to explain how plastics affect the environment and propose measures to avoid further emissions from plastics (Jean-Royer, 2018).
Analysis After having explored each state's action to solve the plastics and microplastics problem, the following section will compare the effectiveness of these efforts. Delaware's multilateral approach is effective as evidenced by data which shows that the amount of plastic collected in the state has been on the decline since 2006/2007 (Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 2017). The state is looking to further improve on the effectiveness of its policy by adopting the 5-cent charge per single-use plastic bag known as House Bill Number 202 (Read, 2016). This action hopes to change shoppers’ behavior toward a more environmentally friendly practice. Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 36
The state of Delaware has passed legislation that has made it mandatory for the retail stores to procure and adopt recycling programs known as at-store programs. Consequently, a significant improvement in the reduction of single-use plastics has been noted as evidenced by the data from the Delaware Solid Management Environmental Service Inc. The statistics indicate that a significant decline in the tons of plastic debris has been achieved when comparing data for
2006/2007 and 2015/2016 (Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 2017). For example, the total amount of plastic waste that was collected in 2006/2007 amounted to 8,705 tones while that of
2015/2016 was 5,189 tones (Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 2017). This shows that a 40% reduction rate was achieved within the time frame of 10 years. A comparative analysis carried across the 10-year period beginning in 2006 shows that the rate of plastic bag reduction has been consistently going down. Much of these efforts are attributed to the implementation of the state legislative bans and well as the multilateral efforts by the NGO’s and the citizens of Delaware.
Therefore, these results indicate the effectiveness of the collaborative efforts between the state of
Delaware and the NGO’s, as well as the passage of the legislative recommendations geared towards containing the menace of plastic pollution (Delaware Solid Waste Authority, 2017).
Also, data collected by the Surfrider Foundation show that the state of Delaware has achieved positive progress with regards to the objective of reducing single-use plastics following the recycling programs. Particularly, the restaurant industry in Delaware has recorded a remarkable decline in single-use plastic as more companies in this sector are turning to other alternative methods of repackaging their products for the consumers.
Now California gives its citizens an option to skip a single-use plastic bag or to pay 10 cents for a plastic bag. California's action encourages consumers to bring a reusable bag to avoid paying for a plastic one. Senate Bill 270 prompts the customer to save money by carrying their Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 37 bag and reducing the number of the single-use plastic bag's being used. Although not every citizen carries their reusable bag, the small percentage of people that do is better than none. This policy also spreads awareness; every time a customer wants to purchase a bag it automatically makes them think of the cause, of reducing plastics. California's plastic policy is more effective because it eliminates free single-use plastic bags as an option; instead, it makes consumers make a decision while spreading awareness by charging. Laws have shown to be effective in this matter. According to Taub (2018), the program directing consumers to pay 10 cents for a plastic bag has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of single-bag plastic bags purchased.
Previously, the customers used more than 35 million plastic bags in a single day, but the number has decreased considerably with the introduction of this legislation.
The author of Senate Bill 270, Alex Padilla has stated that this policy has shown a massive improvement in reducing plastic pollution.
Padilla states: "When I took on the problem of plastic bag pollution four years ago, California retailers were distributing more than 19 billion single-use plastic bags every year. Today, that number is zero. Once again California is leading the way, creating cleaner communities for all." (California Against Waste, 2017).
Findings by California Against Waste from research that was conducted one after the approval of the legislative plastic ban shows a substantial decrease in the amount of plastic bag waste and litter disposal in the state of California, in connection with the data from Coastal Clean-up Day supports Padilla's statement. California has a decline in the number of single-use plastic bags found on beaches, rivers, and parkways (California Against Waste, 2017). In 2010 volunteers documented more than 65,000 plastic bags along the California coastline. In 2016 single-use plastic bags declined by 66%, accounting for less than 2% of items littered, following another successful decrease in 2017 with "72% compared to 2010 and accounted for less than 1.5% of Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 38 items littered" (California Against Waste, 2017). Because of the data provided by the Coastal
Clean-up Day, we see that policy and NGO’s coming together can make changes that are effective in the long run. All in all, these findings affirm the effectiveness of the plastic bag ban in eliminating plastic pollution thus ensuring victory for marine life, oceans, the environment as well as citizens of California. The state intends to combine the plastic bag ban with other plastic disposal alternatives such as at-store recycling to achieve a higher rate of plastic bag waste reduction in the state.
Research carried out by Taub (2018) affirms that implementation of the controversial plastic ban in the state of California has achieved the desired results. The economy and environment of California have been a clear win as data from the environmental research centers suggest that there has been a significant reduction in plastic pollution. From the findings, Taub states the enactment of the plastic ban is clearly working with tangible results to back up the claims (Taub, 2018).
By comparing California and Delaware, we are examining the two policies that still involve single-use plastic bags as part of the solution, Hawaii, on the other hand, has completely banned single-use plastic bags and modified the way single-use plastics are made. The efforts to reduce single-use plastic bags in Hawaii started with each island council working together to make a statewide policy. Hawaii eliminates customer options by entirely prohibiting single-use plastic bags and encouraging reusable bags at checkout. With the ban taking effect, it means that no company is allowed to offer its customers plastic products unless they are recyclable or biodegradable. This policy also discourages retailers from offering their customers non- compostable plastic materials or those designed in a way that they cannot be re-used. This policy is by far the most effective because it removes part of the plastics problem we are experiencing Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 39 today. Hawaii's action changes customer behavior and makes a clear statement: single-use plastic bags are harming our environment, and therefore, we must act.
Based on my research Hawaii’s single-use plastic bag ban policy considered to be effective, the existing loopholes continue to undermine its long-term effectiveness. For example, the Hawaii plastic ban makes a few exceptions such as reusable bags, bags used for medical/sanitary purposes, compostable bags as well as recyclable bags. Understandably, these exemptions have contributed to the slow but steady dumping of plastic bags considered to be exempted from the ban thus undermining the effectiveness of the ban. In order to fix this problem, Hawaii should reconsider the exemptions and implement a revised policy that extends the ban to cover all types of plastics. Consequently, addressing the loopholes will increase the overall effectiveness of Hawaii’s plastic ban policy and lead to a reduction in the rate of plastic pollution.
In conclusion, the implementation of the plastic bag ban achieved the most significant impact with regards to reducing or eliminating the threat of plastic pollution. The removal of the choice of single-use plastics made companies and consumers alike to move to reusable and recyclable paper bags, something that has resulted in a significant transformation across the states of California and Hawaii. The effectiveness of the ban on plastic bags was especially remarkable in California as more than 39 million people stopped using single-use plastics in favor of other alternative degradable and recyclable materials. Remarkably, Hawaii and
California happen to be the only states in the whole of the United States to have implemented plastic ban policies that conclusively ban the use of plastics within their territories.
Consequently, the conclusive bans have contributed to improving the overall effectiveness of the plastic ban policies for these two particular states. On the other hand, Delaware's effort to Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 40 encourage customers to recycle have borne positive fruits, as the data collected by the Surfrider
Foundation shows that the state of has achieved positive progress with regards to the objective of reducing single-use plastics (Surfrider Foundation, 2018). The 40% reduction rate in the amount of plastic pollution that the state achieved is an indication of how effective the ban has been
(Surfrider Foundation, 2018). To conclude this section, I believe that Hawaii is the most effective due to its full ban, followed by California and Delaware.
Policy Recommendations
As it has been explored throughout this paper, policy plays an essential role in reducing single-use plastic pollution. This section will point out suggestions that the author of this paper finds crucial to reducing plastic litter. The first suggestion is to prohibit the Use of single-use plastic bags entirely.
As mentioned above, Hawaii's policy is the most effective, so the first recommendation is to prohibit the use of single-use plastic bags entirely. This action will eliminate the customer's choice to pay for a single-use plastic bag and will encourage California's citizens to carry a reusable bag. This prohibition will be enforced through policy because people tend to act only when there are consequences. The stores that offer single-use plastic bags can potentially save money in the long run because they wouldn't have to provide customers with a plastic bag. For this reason, extending the legislative ban to cover all the plastic products will result in total elimination of the use of plastic bags and will consequently eliminate the harmful effects that plastic pollution has on aquatic and marine life (House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth
Legislature, 2018).
Secondly, I recommend creating collaborative partnerships between the levels of governments and non-governmental organizations. A significant part of Hawaii’s success Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 41 towards eradicating the problem of plastic pollution comes from the various partnerships that the state brokered with a number of NGO’s. Likewise, the states of Delaware and California can achieve the same success by seeking collaborative partnerships with other NGO’s in order to achieve similar levels of success as Hawaii in reducing the magnitude of plastic pollution. On advantage of seeking partnerships is that it allows the various governments and the NGO’s to pull their resources together and this results in having a significant impact on with reducing the environmental issue of plastic pollution (Friends of the Earth, 2018).
Additionally, I recommend educating and sensitizing the public on responsible disposal.
Delaware Sea Grant has mainly pursued the recommendation of educating and Sensitizing the public through college and university-funded programs geared toward promoting responsible use and wise management of environmental and marine resources. Programs that teach the public about the importance of conserving the natural and marine environments have gone a long way towards reducing the problem of plastic pollution. In addition, non-governmental organizations such as the Clear Blue Sea and 5Gyres have extended additional educational outreach services aimed at educating the public on the negative consequences relating to plastic pollution. For instance, the 5Gyres Institute has partnered with the government of California to extend civil education and other adventure-related activities targeting the reduction of plastic pollution.
Through education, 5Gyres has also been able to use the application of science and art to successfully advocate for the reduction of disposal of plastics into the environment. Information on the negative impact that plastic pollution has on the oceans and other marine resources should be made available to the public. Educational centers such as schools, colleges, and universities are a great target for extending the educational outreach services, as young people tend to be great agents of social change (The Clear Sea Blue, 2018). Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 42
Lastly, I propose the use of biodegradable materials and regulating packaging. Non- governmental organizations such as California Oceana Trust, Oceana, 5Gyres and Clear Sea
Blue have proposed that companies should turn to biodegradable materials in packaging their various products. The states of Hawaii, California, and Delaware should, therefore, make it mandatory for the companies that deal with plastic products to repackage their products with other alternative biodegradable materials. This will ease the process of recycling waste plastic products. The mode of packaging should also be regulated so that the consumers are compelled to use recyclable or degradable materials. This will eliminate the irresponsible disposal of plastic waste products into the landfill sites as well as reduce the release of the microplastics and plastic waste into marine water resources (Plastic Soup Foundation, 2018).
The policy of directing companies to use biodegradable materials also provides for the option of recycling. For example, the Clear Blue Sea Group has partnered with the state of
California to successfully reduce the amount of plastic debris in the marine resources and the environment. Recycling the plastic products, therefore, is another recommendation that has proven to be highly effective as evidenced by the data collected by the Clear Blue Sea Group on the amount of debris on the oceans. A comparison between data collected before and after the introduction of the recycling option as a way of conserving the environment shows that significant progress is being made on the fight against plastic pollution (The Clear Sea Blue,
2018).
In summary, this section of the policy paper elaborates on the most effective recommendations that the states of Hawaii, California, and Delaware can implement in order to eliminate or reduce plastic pollution. Some of these recommendations include: extending a blanket ban on single-use plastic products, creating collaborative partnerships between the levels Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 43 of governments and non-governmental organizations, educating and sensitizing the public on responsible disposal, and proposing the use of biodegradable materials and regulating packaging among others.
Conclusion As described from the onset of this paper, plastics and micro-plastics espouse serious hazards on Earth and its inhabitants. Various organizations have risen to the occasion with attempts of saving the world from the risks resulting from the use of plastics. Top among the efforts made towards cleaning American marine ecosystems is the legislative effort. Various states in America have adopted a number of laws geared toward reducing the use of plastic products. Non-Governmental Organizations, including the California Ocean Science Trust, the
Surfrider Foundation, the 5 Gyres Institute, and the Clear Blue Sea Group have also contributed a lot to the reinforcement of the legislation made and adopted by the states. Through my research, I conclude that Hawaii, of the states studied, has adopted appropriate laws against the use of plastics. In fact, California also needs to entirely ban the sale and use of plastic products if it is to relieve the state of the plastic menace.
As this paper recommends, the Californian government needs to adopt stricter measures just like Hawaii in order to ban the use of plastic products in the state. This is because people tend to respond positively to a stimulus which fails to tolerate their behavior. If strict fines are imposed on whoever manufactures, circulates, or even uses plastic products, people will discipline themselves and in turn, save the city and waterways from the hazardous plastics.
Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 44
References
5 Gyres Institute (2018). Plastic microbeads. Retrieved from
https://www.5gyres.org/microbeads/
About DNREC. (2018.). Retrieved November 20, 2018, from
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Pages/AboutAgency.aspx Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 45
Álvarez, G., Barros, Á., & Velando, A. (2018). The use of European shag pellets as indicators of
microplastic fibers in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 137, 444–448.
Axelsson, C., & Sebille, E. v. (2017). Prevention through policy: Urban acroplastic leakages to
the marine environment during extreme rainfall events. Mar Pollut Bull, 124(1): 211–
227.
Bill Text - AB-2779 Recycling: single-use plastic beverage container caps. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 19, 2018, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2779
Bill Text - SB-836 State beaches: smoking ban. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB836
Bill Text - SB-1335 Solid waste: food service packaging: state agencies, facilities, and property.
(n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2018, from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1335
Blue, C. S. (2018). What We Can Do Together. Retrieved from Clear Blue Sea:
https://clearbluesea.org/
California Against Waste. (2017, November 8). One Year Later: Voter Approval of Bag Ban
Results in Substantially Reduced Plastic Bag Litter and Waste. Retrieved from California
Against Waste: https://www.cawrecycles.org/recycling-
news/xtj9dcga9bmh5daxn4sw4kry4zpndg
California Legislative Information (2013). SB-270 Solid waste: single-use carryout bags.
Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB270 Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 46
California Legislative Information (2015). AB-888 Waste management: plastic microbeads.
Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB888
California Legislative Information (2017). AB-1884 Food facilities: single-use plastic straws.
Retrieved from
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1884
California Ocean Protection Council (n.d.). OPC approves grant for Newport Bay Water Wheel.
Retrieved September 22, 2018, from
http://www.opc.ca.gov/category/projectsbytopic/marine-debris-projectsbytopic/
California Ocean Science Trust (2018.). Retrieved November 17, 2018, from California Ocean
Science Trust: http://www.oceansciencetrust.org/about-us/
Capitol. (2018). Hawaii Government Bills Session 2018: SB 2498. Retrieved 2018, from Capitol:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2498_.HTML
Capitol. (2018). Hawaii Government Session 2018 Bills: SB 2964. Retrieved 2018, from Capitol:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/SB2964_.HTML
City & County of Honolulu Department of Environmental Services (n.d.). Plastic bag ban.
Retrieved from http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/archive/plastic_bag_ban.html
Clear Blue Sea. (2018). What We Can Do Together. Retrieved from Clear Blue Sea:
https://clearbluesea.org/
Cressey, D. (2016). Bottles, bags, ropes, and toothbrushes: the struggle to track ocean plastics.
Nature News, 536(7616), 263.
Crouch Dorothy & 2018. (n.d.). California Kills Assembly Bill 2379 as Similar Microfiber
Initiatives Grow in Other States. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 47
http://www.apparelnews.net/news/2018/jun/07/california-kills-assembly-bill-2379-
similar-microf/
Debroas, D., Mone, A., & Ter Halle, A. (2017). Plastics in the North Atlantic garbage patch: a
boat-microbe for hitchhikers and plastic degrades. Science of The Total Environment,
599, 1222–1232.
Delaware Government. (2018). Recycling for Business. Retrieved from Delaware.Gov:
https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-hazardous/recycling/businesses/
Delaware plastic bag survey (2018). Retrieved from https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/waste-
hazardous/delaware-plastic-bag-survey/
Delaware Solid Waste Authority. (2017). Delaware Solid Waste Authority Stateside Waste
Characterization Study, FY 2016. DSM Environmental, 1-68. Retrieved from
https://dswa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Final-Report-DSWA-Waste-
Characterization-FY-2016-January-2017.pdf
Delaware, S. G. (2018). Sea Grant Delaware: Science Serving the Delaware Coast. Retrieved
from Sea Grant Delaware: https://www.deseagrant.org/Foundation, S. (2018). Protect
What You Love. Retrieved from Champions of Surf & Sand: https://www.surfrider.org/
Environment California Research and Policy Center (2018). Keep plastic out of the Pacific
reports. Retrieved from https://environmentcalifornia.org/node/63/content/report
Earth, F. o. (2018). Together We Can Protect People and Planet. Retrieved from Friends of
Earth: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/latest/plastics
Friends of the Earth. (2018). Together We Can Protect People and Planet. Retrieved from
Friends of Earth: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/latest/plastics Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 48
Foundation, P. S. (2018). PSF in Action. Retrieved from Plastic Soup Foundation:
https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J., & Law, K. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
HB215 passed in 2017 does away with sunset AND institutes reporting requirements.pdf. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 20, 2018, from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M0HZKwPwjARor0vNZ14Ks2LXmTZ4E98A/view?us
p=sharing&usp=embed_facebook
Hüffer, T., & Hofmann, T. (2016). Sorption of non-polar organic compounds by micro-sized
plastic particles in aqueous solution. Environmental Pollution, 214, 194–201.
House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature, 2. S. (2018). House Bill Number 2625.
Retrieved from House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature, 2018 State of
Hawaii: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2018/bills/HB2625_.HTM
House of Representatives Twenty-Ninth Legislature. (2016). House Bill Number 621. Retrieved
from House of Representatives Twenty-Fourth Legislature, 2015 State of Hawaii:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2015/bills/HB621.HTM
Jean-Royer, S. (2018, August 1). Degrading plastics revealed as source of greenhouse gases.
Retrieved August 2, 2018, from University of Hawaii at Manoa:
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=9407
Kärrman, A., Schönlau, C., & Engwall, M. (2016). Exposure and effects of microplastics on
wildlife: A review of existing data.
Koelmans, A. A., Gouin, T., Thompson, R., Wallace, N., & Arthur, C. (2014). Plastics in the
marine environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(1), 5–10. Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 49
Legislative Intent Service, Inc. (n.d.). California public resources code statutory history.
Retrieved from http://www.legintent.com/california-public-resources-code-statutory-
history/
Lush Cosmetics (2018). Ban the bead. Retrieved from
https://www.lushusa.com/story?cid=article_ethical-ban-the-bead
Mason, S., Kammin, L., Eriksen, M., Aleid, G., Wilson, S., Box, C., et al. (2016). Pelagic plastic
pollution within the surface waters of Lake Michigan, USA. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 42 (4): 753–759.
McGraby, M. (2018). San Francisco bans plastic straws. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/san-francisco-bans-plastic-straws
Murdock, E. (2015). California bans plastic microbeads: A key step in reducing marine plastic
pollution. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/experts/elizabeth-murdock/california-
bans-plastic-microbeads-key-step-reducing-marine-plastic
National Coalition of State Legislatures (2018). State plastic and paper bag legislation.
Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/plastic-
bag-legislation.aspx
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (2018). What are microplastics? Retrieved
from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html
NSW EPA (2016). Plastic shopping bags: Options paper (p. 37).pdf.
O’Mara, K. (2017, May 18). Are plastic bag bans actually helping the environment? Retrieved
from https://www.kqed.org/news/11461251/are-plastic-bag-bans-good-for-the-
environment
Oceana. (2018). Oceana is dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans on a global Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 50
scale. Retrieved from Protecting the World's Oceans: https://oceana.org/what-we-do
Plastic Soup Foundation. (2018). PSF in Action. Retrieved from Plastic Soup Foundation:
https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/
Rapitim. (2018.). 17 NGOs Fighting Plastic Pollution. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from
Rapitim Humanitarian Travel: https://www.raptim.org/17-ngos-fighting-plastic-pollution/
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2018). Plastic pollution. Retrieved from
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution
Read, Z. (2016, March 8). Delaware shoppers may have to pay for plastic. Retrieved from
WHY:https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-shoppers-may-have-to-pay-for-plastic/
Regele, A. (2018, June 29). New Recycling/Composting Requirements Moving in Legislature.
Retrieved November 8, 2018, from http://calchamberalert.com/2018/06/29/new-
recyclingcomposting-requirements-moving-in-legislature/
Science History Institution (2016). Science of plastics. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencehistory.org/science-of-plastics
Seltenrich, N. (2015). New link in the food chain? Marine plastic pollution and seafood safety.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(2), A34.
Starbucks (2018, July 9). Starbucks to eliminate plastic straws globally by 2020. Retrieved from
https://news.starbucks.com/press-releases/starbucks-to-eliminate-plastic-straws-globally-
by-2020
State of Delaware (n.d.). Title 7, chapter 60, subchapter IX. Pub. L. No. 6099A. Retrieved from
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc09/index.shtml Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 51
Stevenson, C. (2011). Plastic debris in the California marine ecosystem: A summary of current
research, solution strategies, and data gaps. Retrieved from
https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/291/docs/Plastic_Report_lowres.pdf
Surfrider Foundation (2018.). Main Chapters Page. Retrieved November 17, 2018, from
Surfrider Foundation: https://www.surfrider.org/
Surfrider Foundation. (2018). Champions of the Surf & Sand. Retrieved from Surfrider
Foundation: https://www.surfrider.org/about
Taub, D. (2018, January 8). Is California’s Controversial Plastic Bag Ban Working? Retrieved
from GVWIRE: https://gvwire.com/2018/01/08/one-year-later-plastic-bag-ban-working/
UNEP. (2018). Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability. Osaka: The
International Environmental Technology Centre.
United Nations Environmental Programme (2016). Microplastics; Trouble in the food chain.
Retrieved from https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/early_warning/microplastics.pdf
Walsh, D. (2017). Plastics threaten the ocean. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 143(5), 165–
165.
Wallin, & Klarich. (2018, February 23). Explaining California’s Proposed “Straw Law” (AB
1884). Retrieved November 8, 2018, from
https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2018/02/explaining-californias-
proposed-straw-law-ab-1884.html
Wilcox, C., Mallos, N. J., Leonard, G. H., Rodriguez, A., & Hardesty, B. D. (2016). Using expert
elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Marine Policy,
65, 107–114.
Running head: A PLASTIC POLICY THAT PROTECTS THE OCEANS 52