Monday, October 6th, 2014

SPI Supports APBA Referendum on California SB 270

By William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association

William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI

William R. Carteaux, President and CEO, SPI

As I mentioned last week in my comments at the 2014 Global Plastics Summit, California recently enacted SB 270, the nation’s only statewide plastic bag ban. SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association always has and always will advocate for science and fact-based legislation, but SB 270 does not fit this description. In a press release issued last Tuesday, the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA) announced it would take the steps necessary to gather signatures and qualify a referendum to repeal it:

“The approval of SB 270 by the California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown could serve as a case study for what happens when greedy special interests and bad government collide in the policymaking process. 

“Senator Padilla’s bill was never legislation about the environment. It was a back room deal between the grocers and union bosses to scam California consumers out of billions of dollars without providing any public benefit—all under the guise of environmentalism. If this law were allowed to go into effect it would jeopardize thousands of California manufacturing jobs, hurt the environment and fleece consumers for billions so grocery store shareholders and their union partners can line their pockets.”

SPI supports the APBA in opposing SB 270 and seeking a referendum. We do not believe that in passing SB 270 California lawmakers acted in the public interest, and we trust that the public will repeal it at the ballot box.

Plastic bags are the smartest, most environmentally-friendly choice at the checkout counter. Ninety percent (90%) of Americans reuse their plastic bags as trashcan liners, pet waste bags, lunch bags, etc., despite the fact that SB 270’s proponents have attempted to brand plastic bags as “single-use.” This is a myth that’s disproven every day in homes across America. When plastic bags outlive their usefulness, they can be recycled: they are 100% recyclable and can be converted into building materials like decking, fencing and playground equipment. Moreover, they consume less than 4% of the water, generate less than 80% of the waste and require less than 70% of the energy necessary to manufacture their paper counterparts. In addition, consumers will be forced to pay at least 10 cents for every paper bag they purchase.

As for the bags that are oil-derived and made in China, which SB 270’s proponents promote, most are made from nonwoven polypropylene, which isn’t recyclable. In addition, cotton grocery bags must be used 131 times before their contribution to global climate change becomes lower than that of a plastic bag used just once. These bags also have been found to contain toxic lead and harbor harmful bacteria.

Further, plastic bags make up less than two percent (2%) of California’s municipal waste stream and just fourth-tenths of a percent (0.4%) of the overall American waste stream. Thus the bill’s environmental impact will be negligible if not nonexistent. Proponents have been forced to acknowledge this, choosing instead to label SB 270 “a good start.” For them, plastic bags are just the beginning, and plastic bottles, cutlery and other materials are now in their crosshairs.

apba logo_2012That is the issue at hand. The lack of science or logic in SB 270 sets a disconcerting precedent for what legislators could do under the guise of environmental stewardship. This should concern the plastics industry at large: unscientific bills supported by special interests could encourage bans on other plastic products. This must be the beginning of a discussion that plastics recyclers, suppliers, manufacturers and processors have about the future of the industry. The APBA has started this conversation, and we hope the entire plastics supply chain chooses to be a part of it.

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

USGBC Recognizes Plastics Industry Concerns that LEED v4 Promotes Product De-Selection – Conversation is a Good Thing, Results are Better

By Terry Peters, CAE, SPI Senior Director, Technical and Industry Affairs

There are moments in time where science and logic may prevail. The Aug. 27, 2014, press release – U.S. Green Building Council and American Chemistry Council to Work Together to Advance LEED – could be a harbinger of great things for LEED and our industry. The release announces “a new initiative designed to ensure the use of sustainable and environmentally protective products in building by applying the technical and science-based approaches to the LEED green building program. This new initiative acknowledges USGBC’s success in leading the transformation of the building environment and sets up a pathway to take advantage of the materials science expertise of ACC and its members.”   ACC logo

We applaud USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) and ACC (American Chemistry Council) for crafting this agreement in principal.  As active members of the American High Performance Building Coalition (the collaborative of 41 organizations working with ACC), SPI is justifiably proud of this announcement and pleased that several years of intense work with Congress and federal agencies have encouraged USGBC to come to this place.

SPI has been a longtime member of USGBC and stands by previous statements supporting the higher goals of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). Over the years we’ve considered ourselves the loyal, if strident, opposition to the materials credits issue. Through the American High Performance Building Coalition (AHPBC) and the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, we have pressured for change.  At our invitation, Brendan Owens, LEED’s vice president, technical, has presented to our Fluoropolymer and Flexible Vinyl Division meetings about a half dozen times and heard our issues and concerns repeatedly stated.

This is beginning the discussions; nothing is yet agreed that addresses our long standing issues on material credits.  There are entrenched opinions and territories. But we are in a better place for this attempt to work together. Let us suspend our skepticism for a moment and look to the good that may come from this announcement.

LEED is the most used green building standards globally, as well as in the United States where more than 400 cities and communities, 39 states and 14 federal agencies currently require builders to meet LEED standards. That is why the plastics industry and other manufacturing associations are working diligently to get the USGBC to modify some portions of LEED, and also why they applaud some of the improvements in LEED v4.

For example, LEED v4 is pioneering the use of verified life cycle assessment data to determine the environmental impacts of products. As such, there will be a new credit when manufacturers provide Environmental Product Declarations or third-party verified life cycle assessments for their products. There also will be credits for buildings that exceed the established ASHRAE 90.1 standard for energy efficiency by 5 percent and 10 percent.

That is a perfect way of incentivizing builders to reach those levels because it allows you as a designer or builder to choose the material that works best. It doesn’t tell you to use fiberglass or foam, or what not to use. The energy chapter of LEED is an excellent chapter. It is performance-based and material-neutral.

Since it was formed two years ago, the AHPBC has consistently argued that USGBC has developed its LEED standards with a disregard for science, without involving industry and without using a consensus-based approach as is done by organizations such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

LEED has helped make buildings more energy- and resource-efficient. But the latest version disparages and discriminates against vinyl and other materials. As pointed out by my colleagues at The Vinyl Institute, “USGBC’s own Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee examined the environmental impacts of PVC and other materials and concluded that credits to encourage avoidance of any material could lead to use of less-desirable products. Unfortunately, USGBC utterly ignored its own scientific conclusions in LEED v4.”

SPI agrees. This material discrimination should be eliminated. The best materials should be judged by application. We hope this overture of partnership, applying our real world material science to the aspirations of LEED, can work.

Thank you, USGBC.  Now, let’s get to work.

Friday, September 5th, 2014

The California Bag Ban and a Lesson on How Not to Legislate

By Lee Califf, Executive Director, American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA)

The California State Senate approved SB 270 last week, sending a fee on paper bags and the nation’s first statewide ban of plastic bags to Governor Jerry Brown (D) for consideration. Several environmental groups have all but danced in the streets to celebrate the bill’s advance, despite the fact that:

  • plastic bags comprise less than a half of a percent of the U.S. municipal solid waste stream and banning them will have little, if any, effect on reducing litter;
  • plastic bag production generates 80 percent less waste and requires 70 percent less energy to manufacture than paper counterparts; and
  • plastic retail bags are 100 percent recyclable, reusable and made with American natural gas, an environmentally-friendlier alternative to other fossil fuels.

But each of these facts obscures a bigger point about the legislative process that brought SB 270 to Governor Brown’s desk: this so-called “environmental” legislation never had anything to do with the environment.

The Bag “Bargain”

In the process of making environmental policy choices, it often doesn’t take long for the discussion to veer away from the scientific and toward the emotional. Broad considerations for the planet’s future touch deep ideological nerves, so this makes sense, but it can often stifle conversations about actual science, as well as the real environmental ramifications of the policy proposal.apba logo_2012

Recognizing this, proponents of SB 270 decided never to entertain the very good environmentally-friendly reasons to vote against the bill, some of which are outlined above, but instead stood on the assumed truths that have similarly derailed so many other policy discussions. Furthermore, money spoke louder than environmental imperatives or the supposedly inherent evil of plastics, as supporters of the bill made grocers and unions an offer they couldn’t refuse: support SB 270 and we’ll direct the fees collected from the paper bags to you.

The Future

The bill’s lack of real environmental bona fides, along with its enactment via back-room deal, should lead anyone to scoff at the suggestion that SB 270’s success will somehow amount to a win, for any constituency, environmentally-focused or otherwise. For them it’s a symbolic victory, and while they’re celebrating the nation’s only statewide bag ban, all the baggage that comes with this deal isn’t commendable.

In many ways, the bill effectively scams consumers out of billions of dollars in bag fees. It’s a tax, of sorts, but typically taxes go back into state coffers to further benefit the public. In SB 270’s case, the fees collected from consumers won’t be used to pay for a road, a fire truck, a better school or even a marginal environmental benefit; they’ll be used to line the pockets of California grocers.

California has created a prime example of how not to legislate (fleecing consumers and damaging the state economy, all in the name of an imaginary environmental benefit), and other states might not be too eager to follow in California’s footsteps for that very reason, as well as some additional legal concerns. Most states probably won’t be willing to put this kind of fee on bags and give the money to grocery stores, and even if they were willing to do so there are some serious constitutionality questions about that. In effect it’s a tax that’s not going to the government. The private interest gets the money.

But on a more basic level, most states also wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, want to enact a tax on their citizens that essentially amounts to a form of corporate welfare for grocers, all while threatening the state’s economy. SB 270 puts 2,000 Californians that are employed at risk of being unemployed, all for the sake of a dirty deal between California grocers and union bosses. APBA stands with those workers, and with all Californians, as we continue to fight this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation.

Friday, August 1st, 2014

Plastics Champions Host Energetic Group of Industry Officials at Annual Fly-In

Successful Event Results in 120 Meetings with Top Legislators

When given the opportunity to talk openly with Washington officials, SPI members don’t hesitate to express their views about issues important to the plastics industry. Plastics Champions from SPI and eight other organizations met on Capitol Hill July 23 for the 2014 Plastics Industry Fly-in. The annual gathering gives association members the chance to sit down face-to-face with key lawmakers and their staffs.

Frank Kuhlman, Maxi-Blast Inc.; Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) and Katie Masterson, SPI

Frank Kuhlman, Maxi-Blast Inc.; Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) and Katie Masterson, SPI

Before venturing off to the House and Senate buildings, the group of about 110 industry attendees and association representatives were provided an informative briefing by an Obama administration official and other high-level Washington leaders.

First up was Ali Zaidi, of the White House Domestic Policy Council. After talking in generalities about energy, the climate and jobs, Zaidi opened the floor to probing questions about business taxes, the Keystone XL Pipeline and business regulations.

Other speakers represented the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC).

Off to Meet the Members

Fly-in attendees, who became industry lobbyists for the day, brushed up on issues before meeting with senators like Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and House members to include and House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Elizabeth Esty (D-Calif).

Among the key issues discussed:

Energy Policy – SPI and others support energy policy that encourages prudent development and utilization of domestic natural resources. The plastics industry supports energy recovery from non-recycled plastics, development of the Keystone XL Pipeline and responsible use of domestic energy resources that may be enabled through hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking.

Chemical Regulation – The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is being reviewed by Congress, even as the Environmental Protection Agency continues to broaden the scope of regulatory activities under its existing TSCA authority. The plastics manufacturing industry supports efforts led by Senators David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-NM), as well as those of Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), to move consensus-based legislative proposals forward.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) meets Dow Chemical's Jeff Wooster

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) meets Dow Chemical’s Jeff Wooster

Any revision that ignores the significant socio-economic benefits of products made with chemicals, such as plastics, could threaten the industry’s ability to develop and utilize the materials that are essential to the plastics industry.

Consensus-based green building standards – The federal government needs to encourage competition among green building rating systems that do not discriminate against products with proven life-cycle benefits. The best way to advance these goals is to require rating systems to be developed in conformance with established voluntary consensus procedures.

Competition among railroads – The plastics industry supports increasing competition among railroads to ensure that goods are shipped efficiently to both

domestic and international markets. The industry urges policy reforms that encourage fairness for freight rail shippers by removing regulatory barriers to competition and ensuring captive shippers have greater access to competing freight rail service.

Science-based decision-making by plastics industry regulators – A regulatory approach based on sound science is critical to sustain the use of plastics as an important material of choice. Both individually and collectively, several key federal agencies hold enormous power over the plastics manufacturing businesses and products. Among the most important are:

At the end of the day, 120 meetings took place in Capitol Hill. Aside from SPI, other participating associations were: American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Mold Builders Association (AMBA), International Association of Plastics Distribution (IAPD), Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association (PPFA), Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), Manufacturers Association for Plastics Processors (MAPP), Vinyl Institute (VI), and Western Plastics Association (WPA).

Thursday, July 31st, 2014

Plastic Bottles Shed Light on Needy Families

This article originally appeared on the Plastics Makes it Possible Facebook Page

In the impoverished neighborhoods in and around Manila, Philippines, millions of people live in darkness in their homes—even in the daytime. Electricity is often too expensive, and windows are a building expense that many cannot afford.

To change this, a local social entrepreneur has created a program calledPMIP Photo 73114
A Liter of Light that illuminates the homes of underprivileged families by creating solar-powered light bulbs from a resource some may find surprising: used plastic soft drink bottles.

Volunteers for A Liter of Light begin by gathering discarded, clear plastic bottles. The volunteers then fill each bottle with water and a few drops of chlorine bleach (to retard algae growth). They then fit the bottle snugly into a custom-cut hole in the roof of a home, with the bottom of the bottle extending down into the room below. This allows the clear plastic bottle and water to refract the sun’s rays and scatter light into the house. A silicone plastic sealant applied to the roof and bottle prevents water leaks during rainy tropical weather.

On a sunny day, this simple device can produce approximately 50 watts of light in an otherwise dark room.

Because plastics are lightweight and durable, the bottle lights are easy to install and are expected to last more than five years. And the materials to produce the lights cost very little—or nothing, in the case of discarded bottles gathered by volunteers—which makes it possible for A Liter of Light to help many, many people. The program envisions installing plastic bottle lights in one million homes by the end of 2012.

In an area in which some households earn less than a dollar a day, the plastic bottle lights reduce household expenses, as well as the fire hazards associated with faulty electrical wiring and candles. And when the lights need to be replaced, the plastic bottles can be recycled and new solar lights can be installed for little or no cost.

People often find creative ways to reuse plastic products. These new uses can be practical (such as reusing a plastic grocery bag as a trash can liner), or they can be fun (like making a Halloween costume out of plastic bottles). And sometimes, they can help improve people’s lives by creating a solution to a big problem—in this case, “a sustainable lighting project which aims to bring the eco-friendly bottle bulb to low-income communities nationwide.”