If you still don’t have a Halloween costume ready for this weekend, think green when it comes to your last minute getup. This article dives into 1) how Americans will spend $3.32 billion on costumes this year, 2) how many of these costumes are “disposable” and made primarily of plastic, and 3) what kinds of alternative costume solutions are out there so we aren’t part of the pollution. From using what you already have in your closet, buying second hand, or making a costume yourself, there are many possibilities when it comes to our Halloween ensemble. 

If you already have a costume, or aren’t planning on dressing up, consider diving into the dark side of Halloween. Our favorite chocolates often have ingredients (e.g. palm oil) that contribute to deforestation and climate change. We can consider alternative brands or candy options to make our treats less tricky. Check out the Sierra Club’s article from 2019 for rainforest safe Halloween candy options. Have a sustainable and spooky Halloween celebration!

In a recent study, a few *sus* (i.e. suspicious) findings were came to light (your modern slang update). Water use in cities is going down (>25%), even as the population gets larger (>40%). This is great news for the environment! Limiting how much water we use is important to maintaining healthy flows and habitat for our aquatic plants and animals.

How much isn’t the only factor impacting stream health; what is in our waterways can be just as important to keeping the Chesapeake Bay, rivers, and creeks healthy. How do we know what’s in our water? We can look at things, such as the saltiness and cloudiness of a creek, to tell us something about our water. Maybe there’s road salt being used? Maybe there’s construction in the area? Changes in the landscape cause changes in the water and corresponding plants and animals that rely on healthy rivers for survival.

Many agencies and partners go out to streams and track these kinds of changes to inform water management. For example, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Fairfax County recently released their ten-year (2007-2018) study of local streams to assess stream health and stability.

Clean Fairfax’s own research has found plastic pollution to be prevalent in Fairfax county streams, particularly single-use plastic bags and plastic water bottles. We can tackle the trash in our waterways by advocating for the environment with policy changes. How can you advocate? You can put on your scientist hat and investigate your local stream. Voice your questions and concerns from your observations to your own municipal government or ask your district supervisor what initiatives they have in place to ensure a healthy Chesapeake Bay, rivers and creeks.

How to help the environment: 1) push to increase funding for water infrastructure in the Chesapeake Bay and 2) dive into environmental initiatives and issues in Virginia. 

Hey Bay, (Chesapeake) Bay

Water infrastructure includes water supply, flood management, proper sewage and drainage systems, and coastal restoration infrastructure. Investing in this infrastructure, according to Chesapeake Bay Foundation, would restore the environment, improve public health and create green jobs.  For these reasons and more, the American Rescue Plan has allocated approximately $4.3 billion to Virginia for legislators to determine how to use.

When it comes to spending federal funds in Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has powerful recommendations that would create vast, long-lasting benefits. Did you know, over half of Virginia resides in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (i.e., a drainage area that leads to a body of water)? This means initiatives that are good for the Bay are good for Virginia! So much so that the City of Fairfax has its own comprehensive Chesapeake Preservation Plan. This plan serves as a planning tool and also a reference for your local water resource (see figure A2; p.11 on PDF, p.159 on document). Investing in Chesapeake Bay infrastructure would consequently be an investment in our local water resources. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s recommendations center around 1) upgrades to storm and wastewater infrastructure to keep pollution out of the natural environment and 2) utilizing trees as green infrastructure to help reduce costly flooding, pollution transport and lower temperatures. Check out their recommendations in more detail with the above links and make sure you tell Congress where you think funding should go!

VA Got Issues (& Policy Solutions)

Virginia Conservation Network (VCN), a network of conservation partners from across the Commonwealth, recently released the annual Common Agenda for 2022. This agenda outlines conservation issues in Virginia and establishes state-specific policy solutions that are short and sweet. Each environmental issue is discussed in two pages, including an executive summary, presentation of challenges, solutions, and policy recommendations. Clean Fairfax is a Partner of VCN and has previously co-authored briefing book papers on plastic and litter pollution. The Common Agenda is quite the detailed resource (152 pages!), so take a quick read over a few of our favorite topics, including 1) Tackling Polluted Stormwater Runoff and Restoring Local Water Quality, 2) Reducing Single-Use Plastic (p. 5-6), Litter, and Marine Debris in Virginia (p. 11-12), and 3) Ensuring Accountability in the Chemical Conversion Industry (p. 109-110). Happy reading!

This month is National Water Quality Month and when it comes to water, quality is the new clean. How do we know if water has “good” quality? Water quality is determined by looking at different characteristics of water, such as cloudiness (turbidity) or saltiness (salinity). By looking at certain characteristics, we are able to judge if water is of good enough quality for a certain use, such as for drinking! 

A reliable source of freshwater, such as a spring, may be of good enough quality for watering plants and animals, but likely doesn’t have high enough quality for drinking without treatment. In the United States, all drinking water is regulated and has to meet federally set standards. Water quality standards are important, because you can’t know if a water source is good by looking at it; you also can’t judge if water is safe to drink by where it comes from. Groundwater (such as well and spring water) can be contaminated with naturally occurring metals from rocks and nutrient runoff from farms. Rivers and streams can similarly face naturally occurring and man-made pollution.

One type of man-made pollution we are especially focused on at Clean Fairfax is plastic. Plastics (such as plastic bags and bottles) are a physical (and sometimes chemical) pollutant. Plastics can block stream flow and threaten the health of wildlife and their habitat when they degrade into tiny pieces, called microplastics. Stay tuned for more water quality tidbits this month– August 2021! In the meantime,check out the EPA’s page on how litter, like single-use plastic, impacts the world’s rivers and oceans. 

ePlastic bags trapped in debris on local, Fairfax County streambank. Photo credit: Emily FoppeA plastic bag fee ordinance will be discussed at a public hearing on September 14 at 4:30 PM in the Board Auditorium of the Fairfax County Government Center. While this legislation is framed as a tax, the ordinance would be more similar to a user fee, because people can opt out by bringing their own bags and the money is partially retained by the store. Taxes are mandatory, so calling it a “bag tax” is misleading. Bag fees are a hot topic, but there are many misconceptions people use to push against them. Here, we touch on the four main categories that arguments fall into and “debunk” these misconceptions.

Plastic bags are not free and millions of taxpayer dollars are spent cleaning up these nuisance plastics. Stores include the cost of bags in the items they sell– just like other operating costs such as electricity and water– so you already pay for them. Part of the fee is returned back to stores to assist in covering costs of alternative bags or provide free reusable bags to low-income communities. Plastic bag fees are equitable for this reason and because the cost per year of such a bill on these communities has been found to be as low as $5. What’s more, reusable bags are better for the environment; they are not made out of fossil fuels and are not less “clean” compared to plastic bags. Plastic bags are not sterile and can be contaminated. We would even argue bringing and handling your own bag at checkout would have less room for potential germ transfer. Lastly, plastic pollution is all around (and in!) us. Tiny plastic particles, called microplastics, are in the air we breathe, food we eat, and endangering many species of animals.

Plastic bag fees provide a proactive and proven way of keeping pollution out of our waterways (and therefore, out of us), as opposed to popular reactive projects (e.g. litter clean-ups). Relying on recycling technologies and clean-ups, according to leading scientists, cannot alone solve the plastic pollution problem we are facing today. Plastic bag bills are an equitable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly solution to fight one front of plastic pollution. Check out Litter Free Virginia’s page for more myth-busting talking points about the single-use plastic bag fee.

We’re here to set the recycling record straight before diving too deep in bag bills and other single-use plastic legislation. Goldilocks would affirm finding the metaphorical bed that is just right to take on plastic pollution takes much consideration. Here, we consider the three primary kinds of recycling exist– upcycling, recycling and downcycling.

Upcycling involves transforming a material into something of higher value (e.g. turning plastic bottles into a bottle filling station at your office), while downcycling involves making material into something of lower value (e.g taking crushed glass bottles to make a roadbed. Recycling refers to the well known process of taking a material into something of the same value (e.g. plastic bottles into more plastic bottles). What may be a surprise to you is traditional recycling is often really downcycling. A study from 2017 found of 14% of global plastic that was collected for recycling, 8% was downcycled, 4% was lost, and only 2% was actually recycled or upcycled. Downcycling is a less ideal option when it comes to waste solutions because it lowers the quality of material over time. Further, less than 1% of what’s recycled will live two lives.

Advanced recycling, or chemical conversion, uses fossil fuels to further process plastic into more environmentally persistent material and this technology has yet to prove itself as a viable climate mitigation alternative. The dream of a circular economy which seamlessly cycles plastics has jumped the gun in the hopes that more recycling will solve our plastic pollution problem. True circular economies 1) utilizes all options across the supply chain to use as few resources as possible in the first place, 2) keeps resources in circulation for as long as possible, 3) extracts the maximum value from them while in use, then 4) recovers and regenerates products at the end of service life. This article does a great job navigating the perceptions and realities of a circular economy and how it goes beyond traditional recycling. 

While new recycling technologies are necessary steps towards a sustainable future, a shift in culture with legislation (such as bottle bills, but similarly bag fees) is a reliable way to eliminate the use of plastic products in the first place. Moreover,  next time you hear about flashy recycling practices, ask if this is true recycling, or downcycling! You’ll be surprised how many environmentally situated arguments and technologies are hidden sources of greenhouse gas. 

Pointing Fingers at Plastic

The push to stop transforming fossil fuels to plastic has not received the attention it deserves. We easily point fingers (and rightfully so) at the transportation sector as a contributor to climate change; in response, there’s a push for solar energy and electric vehicles as preferential climate change solutions. Climate solutions also require smaller scale changes and nuanced legislation changes, but these options are not nearly as flashy and popular. The irony of environmental movements is we often focus on the elusive, big picture solutions. We make lofty goals such as 100% renewable energy or phasing out ALL single use plastics by 2050, before getting into the details of how we would accomplish these goals. What we need to remember to prioritize is to push for regulations and policy that restrains the plastic market in light of the prevalence and persistence of plastic pollution and to walk before we can run. 

Recent research from a team of scientists that spanned the fields of chemistry, engineering, sustainability, and materials science stressed, “To achieve a more sustainable future, integration of not only technological considerations, but also equity analysis, consumer behavior, geographical demands, policy reform, life-cycle assessment, infrastructure alignment, and supply chain partnerships are vital,”. In other words, the backbone of a sustainable future requires complex and collaborative solutions. It seems like all kinds of scientists are on the same page and they call for new approaches to plastics design, production and use, in order to keep plastics out of landfills and waterways. Now all that’s left is for consumers, producers, and lawmakers to get on board.

World-wide Tipping Point

“Technology, and clean-ups, won’t save us from plastic pollution” according to leading environmental and geotechnical scientists. To tackle the plastic problem at its root, before it’s too late, recent research, called for caps on the production of virgin plastic to increase the value of recycled plastic and a ban on the export of plastic waste. The article stressed lack of progress in mitigating plastic pollution could lead to an array problems– what they call “hypothetical examples of possible effects” such as 1) exacerbation of climate change due to global carbon alteration, 2) biodiversity loss in the ocean where plastic pollution is an additional stressor to overfishing, 3) ongoing habitat loss caused by changes in water temperature, nutrient supply and chemical exposure. 

These hypothetical, enormous environmental disasters have the potential to manifest in our lifetime without an alteration of human behavior. Indeed, global emissions of plastic to the world’s waters are expected to almost double by 2025 if business-as-usual scenarios continue. Plastic pollution is approaching an irreversible tipping point and we all are called to play a part in the providing pressure for progress.

Plastic water bottles often seem more convenient and safe than tap water, but this is not true. Oftentimes, we turn to bottled water because it’s 1) more “pure”, or tastier, and 2) more convenient than what comes from the tap. Let’s dive into it. 

First, what does it mean to be “purer” and does bottled water taste better? The difference between these two waters is who regulates the standards. The EPA regulates tap water, while FDA regulates bottled water, but in both cases, there are similar standards. Differences in taste often have to do with different sources. For example, water in Saint Louis, Missouri, from the Missouri River tastes different from water in Fairfax, Virginia, from the Potomac River. Both, however, are safe sources of drinking water (after being treated, of course). While this news piece details plastic bottles as problematic, it unnecessarily raises drinking water safety concerns. It’s alarmist regard for PFAS or “forever chemicals” found in drinking water is a little extreme, especially in light of Fairfax Water’s analysis in April of 2021 (spoiler: no risk for PFAS exposure).  So to answer our question, no, bottled water is not “purer” or inherently safer than tap water. 

Secondly, bottled water companies sell a convenient way to drink water. This means companies selling plastic water bottles really sell plastic bottles filled with tap water. The life-cycle of plastic bottles contributes to global warming and pollution– you only have to step out into your local creeks to find evidence of massive amounts of plastic pollution (see photo)! To say plastic pollution is inconvenient to the environment does not do it justice. This great source of information estimates $13 billion in yearly losses due to plastic pollution in marine environments– where all freshwater in our streams eventually flows. 

Now that we have debunked the convenience, safety and tastiness of bottled water, join us this Plastic Free July in committing to reusable water bottles. Keep one in your car, in case you forget. No water bottle refill station at work or the gym? Fill it up in the sink or at a regular drinking fountain! What’s more, advocate for producer responsibility. We were all told growing up to clean up our own messes, and corporations have made profits off of polluting the environment. See our previous post on why solely individual action can’t solve the plastic pollution problem at hand.

Imperfect is perfectly fine as far as the environment is concerned and some progress is better than no progress at all! So join us in committing to Plastic Free July to do our small part in reducing our environmental impact.

Eliminating single-use plastics in your daily life can be as simple as utilizing a reusable water bottle and grocery bags. But, as this 2019 article discusses, banishing ALL plastics from your life can be a challenge. So many products ingrained in our routines are wrapped up in plastic.  Looking at the extent of plastic pollution worldwide, we know that this problem didn’t arise overnight and is decades in the making. I find it interesting to reflect on how plastic became the status quo for products to situate our understanding of the past and future of plastic use.

Before World War Two and the Great Depression, plastic products were not ingrained so deeply in day to day life and reusable products were just regular products. Plastic was initially necessary during these eras as it substituted for scarce natural resources during the war and plastic production assisted the economy in it’s recovery by providing a inexpensive, safe, and sanitary material. It was dire need that invented and implemented this material and we have not revisited its widespread use in decades. From history, we find evidence that it is possible to reduce the use of these products and more efficiently utilize continuous cycles of use with modern technology. 

What’s important to consider, as we participate in this month of plastic pollution awareness, is that we aren’t the one ones producing this plastic in the first place. This article discusses how just a handful of companies are the ones contributing the majority (55%) of the world’s plastic waste. This means, even if every person was perfectly prohibiting plastic from their lives, our actions wouldn’t be enough to completely address plastic pollution.

Plastic Free July is not only about reducing single-use plastics in our daily life, but also a time for us to reflect on how we can pressure systems to reduce the production of these problematic plastics in the first place.

Bussin (definition)

Know what’s trending (other than the word “bussin”)? Using recycled materials in goods. From yoga pants, to deck chairs, to plastic bottles with minimum recycled content, brands are hopping on the “green” bandwagon to give the people what they want. With increases in demands for recycled plastic, bottle bills seem like a wonderful solution. Even the plastic industry, such as American Beverage, are “open to discussion on any kinds of systems that will get our bottles back,”. However, people within the recycling industry don’t think current curbside recycling can keep up with the times, and bottle bills create their own, streamlined system for processing plastic. So what’s the hold-up, and why was Hawaii the last state to implement a bottle bill, 16 years ago?

This article discusses some of the nuances and challenges involved with established bottle bills. Roadblocks to successful bottle bills include high operating costs, lower collection rates (you, often, are the one dropping off the bottles), a shrinking number of deposit centers and issues with funding. Advocates say there are solutions to these roadblocks. To name a few, expanding the kinds of bottles that can be returned for redemption (technology changes over time, thus changing types of plastic produced) and raising the redemption value to match inflation rates.  Once these systems are modernized and a system is in place for successful performance, bottle bills would meet current demands for recycled resin; however, steamrolling ahead and investing in a process that, historically, has faced challenges comes off as an irresponsible plan. Progress needs to be made in light of current challenges, so that new systems are shored up and successful.

What’s more, Representative Luria for Virginia 02 is championing a bill that would tax virgin plastic. This goes about a bottle bill in a different way. Essentially, her bill would implement a bottle bill unless single use bottles are made from recycled plastic. And that, my friends, is bussin.