S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Against the backdrop of an ExxonMobil lawsuit and a ban on plastic grocery bags. We're talking about corporate responsibility and how to get single use plastics off California beaches. I'm Jade Hyndman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired and make you think. So there's a new plastic bag ban.
S2:
S1: Plus , for years , some corporations have said their plastic products are recyclable. But that's not entirely true. We'll break that down and talk with a local nonprofit working to clean up our coastline. That's ahead on Midday Edition and. Recycling is supposed to help the planet , but what if it's not as effective as it's chalked up to be ? For example , the state of California filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil last week alleging the oil giant carried out a decades long campaign of deception that overpromised the pros of recycling and created a plastic pollution crisis. It comes at the same time Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new bill banning single use plastic bags at most stores starting January 1st , 2026. Both of those matters hone in on the perils of plastic and the lack of environmentally friendly practices. Here , to help us understand these issues and how they affect San Diegans is Mackenzie Ulmer. She's the environment and energy reporter at Voice of San Diego. Mackenzie , welcome back to the show.
S2: Thanks for having me.
S1: So glad to have you here. First , I want to focus on a recent story of yours. You looked into how certain compostable or Biodegradable bags aren't accepted by the Food waste Recycling program.
S2: Sounds great , but everybody's looking for something to line their kitchen pail or their green bin with so that they doesn't get all slimy from the food waste and flies and things get in there. Well , it turns out that the city of San Diego , even Eder Co , which is a big trash hauler here in San Diego , they don't accept bags that are labeled compostable or biodegradable , and that's an option people often think would be a good one to replace. You know , others that don't break down. Right. Mhm. The city of San Diego said , you know we don't accept that because we can ensure that they're going to break down all the way. They contaminate our final compost product and not even echoes. They have an anaerobic digester , which is like this commercial grade composter that can turn it into fuel or electricity. They also don't accept these types of bags , interestingly enough. Wow.
S3: Wow.
S1: Well , so digging into this story , it led you into the world of plastics.
S2: And these bags were stamped with these certifications that say they're okay to use in home compost piles and also like commercial grade composting. And I found the home composting claim to be pretty interesting. I found that to be pretty shocking. Like , and if it if it works , that would be great , right ? But I wanted to check it out. So because it just seemed like it would be too good to be true. Honestly.
S1: Well , in this bag , it's called the hippo sack. Is that right ? Yeah.
S2:
S1:
S2: And I'm still in the process of reporting this out , but I started contacting the companies that they make a business out of certifying products as compostable or biodegradable. And this bag company wasn't marketing some of their claims correctly. I found out they're at home. Compost certifier , which is this company out of Austria said that they had this company for Hippo sack , had an expired certification and so they were marketing incorrectly the hippo sac maker , which is called Crown Poly , they're from California. They told me that they've been trying to get Ahold of their Austrian certifier to try to , like , renew their certification and all this , but it's bottom line is it's pretty hard to tell and find out the actual research behind these certifications and how these companies make their determinations about what is compostable or biodegradable.
S1: Yeah , well , it's quite the saga you investigated there. But zooming out to the state level , similar issues with plastics and their inability to be recycled have been a priority. That includes a plastic bag ban in grocery and convenience stores and a lawsuit against ExxonMobil. Let's start with the new plastic bag ban , though , here in California.
S2: And she pushed this bill to ban all plastic bags , not just single use ones , from being sold to customers at the checkout. So now you'll be offered paper bags at the grocer instead of a choice.
S1: And this is a renovation , if you will , of an older law , right ? Yeah.
S2: Ten years ago , California was first in the nation to ban this single use plastic bag statewide. But what happened is bag makers develop like a heartier , thicker plastic bag , which is supposedly supposed to be reusable and therefore illegal under this law. Later on , the state finds out , you know , plastic waste generation actually went way up from having these sort of thicker , you know , plastic bags using more plastic. It was a a 47% increase because people and recyclers weren't actually recycling or reusing these bags. Right.
S1: Right.
S2: Um , after that start date that you mentioned. But I also noticed in Blake Spears bill , it also permits compostable bags to be sold. And so that brings us back to this notion of are all these bags that sometimes look like plastic , but are purportedly made from natural materials really compostable , especially if no composters will take them.
S1:
S2: And then since then , I guess a dozen or so other states have passed some kind of plastic bag ban. But I have no idea whether they're experiencing the same kind of waste increase that California has.
S1: Yeah , well , what about this lawsuit from the state of California against ExxonMobil ? Can you break that down ? Yeah.
S2: So California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed this lawsuit against ExxonMobil , claiming that it deceptively promoted a kind of plastic bag recycling called chemical recycling as a solution to the pollution crisis. And this followed some great reporting by ProPublica about how this supposed technology is actually shrouded in a lot of secrecy and couldn't really be proven. Hmm.
S1: Hmm.
S2: And that's kind of the point. About 5% of this plastic actually gets recycled. And that the reason why is there are thousands of different kinds of plastics with different chemical makeups. It's made out of fossil fuels , natural gas and petroleum kind of at its base. So that's another reason why companies like ExxonMobil have this , like vested interest in the continued Manufacture and demand for plastics , especially as a world starts to transition to green energy and away from fossil fuel use for traditional , you know , for cars and homes. Um , and I was looking up the US Energy Information Administration doesn't even know how much or the origin of the oil and gas that's used to create plastics in the United States. So we really don't have a very good grip on where this plastic is coming from in the first place. So that makes it all the more harder to recycle. Wow.
S3: Wow.
S1: You know , but there is an entire industry built on recycling. I mean , we've been separating our plastic bottles and cans and so on and so forth for years now , and paying to have it picked up at our homes.
S2: So and I want to take this opportunity to remind people , when you throw away your recycling and their blue recycling bin , do not put it in a plastic bag , because that just ruins pretty much the entire process. And there's no plastic bags. They're supposed to be allowed in the recycling bin , honestly. Especially now. Hmm.
S3: Well , here's what.
S1: We heard in a statement from ExxonMobil regarding the lawsuit. It says in part , quote , for decades , California officials have known their recycling system isn't effective. They failed to act , and now they seek to blame others. End quote. You can find the rest of that statement on our website , pbs.org.
S2: But it's interesting that the attorney general is taking this step. It's the first time a government officials taking legal action against an oil company for plastic pollution. So that's a big change. And we'll see if the lawsuit actually is able to prove that the company basically lied or falsely advertised about how effective its product would be in terms of being recycled. So at the very least , it has a strong effect on , like the public perception of about the link between oil companies and plastics and might inspire other types of litigation like this.
S1: All right. I've been speaking with Mackenzie Ulmer , environment and energy reporter at Voice of San Diego McKenzie. Thank you so much for joining us.
S2: Thank you.
S1: Coming up next , a conversation about greenwashing.
S4: And so environmentalism has become a popular idea , which is good , but that creates a new danger , which it can be turned into a tool of deception.
S1: Hear more when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. We just heard about a statewide plastic bag ban and a lawsuit against ExxonMobil over plastic recycling and pollution. Well , now we dive into the ethics of environmental responsibility and corporate action when it comes to climate. Here to help us unpack the topic is Professor Andy Lamey. He's a professor in UC San Diego's philosophy department , where he teaches multiple courses on environmental ethics. Professor Lamey , welcome to midday edition.
S4: Thanks a lot. Great to be here.
S1: So glad to have you here. So , you know , philosophy is a through line to so many things. I'd love to hear about your teaching and how it merges with the environment.
S4: Well , as you can imagine , climate change has become a huge issue in recent years , and that raises a lot of questions about how we should respond to it that have an ethical component , whether they involve the behavior of individual people like you and me , or larger entities like the government and companies. So one class that I've taught a lot in recent years focuses entirely on ethical issues regarding climate change. And I've also often taught a class on environmental issues and the environment more broadly that touches on climate change , but also other issues. You know , everything from the management of ecosystems to the moral status of animals.
S1:
S4: So if you imagine two companies with environmentally unsustainable practices , you are competing with one another. From a purely economic point of view , they have an incentive to continue engaging in the unsustainable practices , so long as their competitors are also doing so. So it can be very difficult or even impossible to get to sustainable solutions that rely on people doing the right thing , even when they know what the right thing is. So often we need the government to take action that will allow us to do what's in our interest and everybody's interest long term , but which is not in our immediate short term interest. So that's why , for example , international treaties like the Paris Climate Accord are so important. They allow countries to do that collectively. And we face collective action problems in a lot of different ways when it comes to climate change on a global level. Secondly , there's a related debate. You know , it's become a little bit of a talking point in recent years that really the solutions here don't involve individual actions. That's a distraction from where our attention should be , which is on the actions of larger players like ExxonMobil , the government or other big corporations. And we look into those issues with an eye to saying that really , at the end of the day , both governments and companies , the big players and individuals like you and me , we all need to do something if we're going to get to a sustainable solution. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1: You know , it kind of reminds me , I don't know , like back in the 80s , everyone was told to stop using the aerosol cans , but your hair spray down. It's bad for the ozone layer. And I don't know how impactful our individual actions were in terms of saving the ozone layer , as opposed to what could have been done with more corporate action.
S4: That's a very good example. And so there actually was an accord on the production of those chemicals that , if you may remember , during the 80s , there were this constant drumbeat of news stories about the hole in the ozone layer. And one reason we don't read those stories anymore is that governments signed an international treaty , the so-called Montreal Accord , that did involve countries coming together to act collectively to come up with a sustainable solution. So in that case , there was a solution that could be imposed in this kind of like top down way. So there are cases where that can work. But , you know , an example I like to use is like , think about electric cars , where I think a lot of people who follow environmental issues now are hoping that electric cars will become as popular here as they are in places like Norway. And there's a lot of big picture kind of systemic questions that need to be addressed in order for that to happen. So there's issues around , for example , charging networks. It's difficult , if not impossible for people like you and me to go out and just set up a charging network that requires an action on the part of the government or the companies. But if we want electric cars to kind of take off , we also need individual people to buy them. And so the idea that these systematic kind of large scale solutions , they're absolutely critical. There's no question we can obsess about the individual stuff in a myopic way that distracts from that. But even though that's the case , we should also recognize , you know , these are not ultimately separable when we think about the total solution. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1: And of course , as it goes with capitalism , even well-intentioned ideas like environmentalism can be reduced into a marketing tool.
S4: So if we think about the complaint that the state of California has brought against ExxonMobil , in many ways , it's sort of a textbook example of what sometimes called environmentalism of the rich , which is an ironic name. This is not a form of environmentalism worth having. So people have probably heard of greenwashing , which is where anybody big companies , you know , right down to individuals , mom and pop operations , kind of minimize the negative environmental impact of what they're doing. But the environmentalism of the rich is sort of like greenwashing on steroids. And it's when really big economic players , big corporations , they put a kind of environmental happy face on what they're doing. So they'll issue sustainability reports that if you just go by what the company is saying about itself , it sounds pretty good. It sounds like they really care about the environment. But then when you juxtapose that with what they're doing , they're engaging in some of the most environmentally destructive practices that we need to address or stop in order to really , you know , ensure a clean environment for our descendants. So environmental concerns are not unique in this way. Anytime an idea takes on any kind of moral prestige in the wider society , the unfortunate reality is it can be reduced to a marketing tool. And so environmentalism has become a popular idea , which is good , but that creates a new danger , which it can be turned into a tool of deception. Mhm.
S3: Mhm.
S1: So outside of this ExxonMobil lawsuit , have we seen deceptive advertising or legal actions like this happened before ? Yeah.
S4: So I mean , I think an example that would be familiar to a lot of listeners will be the record of the tobacco companies where we've been able to go back and see internal documents going back decades , where it's clear that within the companies , they knew quite well that cigarettes were addictive and a very serious health menace , and that was not matched in their public statements and certainly not their advertising. And so if the allegations in the complaint that has been brought against ExxonMobil are correct , then we see something very similar here in regards to the recycling when it comes to plastics. There's a big issue around recycling plastic in the US right now , only 9% of plastics actually do get recycled , and there's a lot of challenges and serious obstacles in the way of doing it in a more systematic way. But if you go back and you look at what ExxonMobil and the industry groups in which it is a major player , if you go back and look at what they say , you would never get that impression. You would think that everything is hunky dory when it comes to recycling plastics. Yeah.
S3: All right.
S1: Well , and you know , I want to bring it back to the environment here. And first start by defining our terms because I want to know about greenwashing since that's kind of what we've been talking about here.
S4:
S1:
S4: And so as the concept itself becomes more popular , it's kind of misused. Goes hand in hand with that.
S1: And what kind of impact does that have on the public.
S4: It can have a pretty negative impact. So one example that comes to mind that's relevant to the complaint against ExxonMobil is people are probably familiar with seeing three folded arrows on items that are recyclable. So that symbol becomes starts to become popular in the US in the 1970s. Then in the 1980s , plastics manufacturers , they take that symbol and they start putting it on , you know , plastic household items , detergent bottles , all sorts of things where you see those same three arrows , but you see a number and the numbers go from 1 to 7. And an innocent person could be entirely forgiven for thinking that when they see that version of the three arrows with the number on it , because it has the same symbol we use in recycling , you could be forgiven for thinking that it means , okay , I can recycle this detergent bottle or what have you , but when you see it with the numbers , numbers one and two are recyclable , but three through seven aren't. And so its function has been to. To use a phrase from the attorney General's report , it's like a guilt eraser. Oh , I can recycle this , right ? That's what they want you to think. But that's not true in the vast majority of instances. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1:
S4: And in the US right now , in many ways , we've seen a breakdown of trust when it comes to certainly climate science. You saw this around Covid , you know , vaccine efforts and things like that. And so anything that has the potential to undermine the public's trust in what they're supposed to do , in what they're being told to do , is something that we should take very , very seriously. And so now if people come away with the idea that , oh , the message that I should recycle was itself another kind of , quote unquote , you know , bogus message from the powers that be. It's hard to get trust back after it's been lost. And so the allegations against ExxonMobil are extremely serious in that way , insofar as they have the potential to make people kind of , you know , cynical and distrustful about environmental action , certainly , when it comes to recycling plastic , but also more broadly. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1:
S4: So the irony of the existing version of the bag ban is that the amount of plastic that has been going into landfills has actually increased since California brought in the ban , I think , in 2014. And that's because it had this big loophole which said , if you're at the grocery store , they won't give you the traditional single use plastic bag , but you could buy this slightly thicker bag for $0.10. So what happened was people just started treating those bags as single use bags. The revised version of the ban , I think , is a good idea. It's certainly worth trying. One of the main things it has going for it is it closes that loophole. And it also says that while grocery stores can give you a paper bag , they have to charge you for it. Certainly there's some evidence to suggest that that would be more effective. Mhm.
S3: Mhm. What was.
S1: The thought behind making those ten cent bags. Thicker.
S3: Thicker.
S4: The idea was that people would reuse them. Yeah , they would sort of more sturdy and more durable. But then people are busy or , you know , they don't don't always have environmental issues on top of mind or so they would just start treating them like , as I say , single use bags. And then once the industry became aware of the of the loophole , you started to see industry clout going towards , you know , encouraging that kind of attitude. Again with this idea like , oh , it's plastic. It must be recycled. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. You know.
S1:
S4: And so I think part of it is cost paper is heavier than plastic. Uh , on an economic level , it can be more expensive to transport it. So I think the main drivers were economic considerations.
S1:
S4: You need somebody willing to pay for the plastic to use it. But there are sort of two barriers that stand in the way of that , at least right now , the way things are leading to really extensive recycling of plastic. So one is so-called virgin plastic. Plastic that has not been recycled but has just been made is cheaper. Um , if you think about even before the actual process of recycling the plastic , somebody has to transport it or sorted or clean it. And so from a purely economic point of view , it's not as inexpensive as new plastic. And then secondly , the plastic doesn't retain its quality as it goes through the recycling process. It becomes , you know , a sort of less less durable , less high quality plastic. So if you're going to reuse it , you can't , for example , make a new milk jug out of an old one. You've got to find some other use that doesn't require that same quality of plastic. So that limits the amount of functions that the new item can be put towards. So I would say those are sort of two two major barriers. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1:
S4: So Santa Barbara , for example , has a plastic bag ban , and it didn't have that loophole about the thicker bags. And there's evidence to suggest that it has been more successful than the California state level ban. And there's similar evidence about similar bans. So it's not really the case that banning plastic bags will necessarily backfire. A lot comes down to how they're actually worded , and there's evidence to suggest that when you close the loopholes that we're talking about , we can reasonably expect that they will be effective.
S1: So big picture here with the plastic bag ban and state lawsuit against ExxonMobil.
S4: Some of it actually does , in fact , get , uh , recycled. But I guess we should recognize that while we should continue to act on an individual level , we need to keep our eyes on the larger prize , which is very much at the level of what governments are doing. So right now in the US , we're in the middle of a election campaign. And if we directed our energies into electing political leaders who take these issues seriously , I think that would be a huge step. And I think we can make a difference as individuals in that way.
S1: All right. I've been speaking with UC San Diego professor Andy Lamy. Professor Lamy , thank you so much for joining us.
S4: My pleasure.
S1: Still ahead , the impact single use plastics are having on our coastline.
S5: 85% of items that we collect at California Beach cleanups are single use plastics. So we need to do more. And we need to take this fight to the court for the health of our ocean and the people who depend on it.
S1: KPBS Midday Edition returns after the break. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. You just heard about the environmental responsibility corporations have and how ethics takes a backseat to profits in many cases. Now we look at one local group working to hold corporations accountable for plastic pollution. Surfrider is a nonprofit environmental organization that works to protect and preserve the world's oceans and beaches. Here , from their San Diego chapter is policy manager Mitch Silverstein. Mitch , welcome to Midday Edition.
S5: Great to be here , Jade. Thanks for having me.
S1: It's great to have you here. So we've been talking a lot about California's new plastic bag ban , set to take effect in 2026 , as well as the state of California currently suing ExxonMobil over recycling claims. Tell us how your organization was involved in those two efforts. Sure.
S5: Sure. So starting with the bag ban version 2.0 , as I like to call it , SB 1053 , Surfrider came on early as a sponsor of the bill and worked , you know , with Senator Blake Spears office and also with a coalition of environmental groups really statewide , you know , not just based in Sacramento and our Surfrider chapters all over the California coast to really support this bill and make sure , you know , do everything we could to get it passed. So we're really stoked , to be honest , to see that , you know , it sailed through both houses of the state legislature pretty easily with bipartisan support , and that the governor recently signed it. Then going to the lawsuit against Exxon. In addition to Attorney General's lawsuit , Surfrider has also filed its own lawsuit. And it really comes down to , you know , basically for 40 years , we've been fighting plastic pollution through beach cleanups , our public education campaigns and common sense policy initiatives at really all levels of the government. And we've had a lot of success. But despite that , 85% of items that we collect at California beach cleanups are single use plastics. So we need to do more , and we need to take this fight to the court for the health of our ocean and the people who depend on it.
S1: Well , so I want to know more about that.
S5: That's kind of a question for our attorneys , you know , and we have to remember , Exxon is the world's largest multinational producer of single use plastic polymers. And what we're seeking to do is hold them accountable for their production of plastics and especially the deception our complaint alleges they've been engaging in for decades. Hmm.
S1: Well , this new plastic bag ban and lawsuit , it's got a lot of overlap with the mission of Surfrider. Tell us a little bit about your organization's mission and actions you take to create a clean environment.
S5: So Surfrider mission is the protection and enjoyment of the world's ocean waves and beaches for all people through a powerful activist network. We have five main initiatives that we work on , including clean water , beach access , coastal preservation , and plastic pollution. And really , what we want to see is an end to single use plastics nationwide by 2035. We do that , you know , in a lot of ways , we really advocate for better legislation and practical policies to reduce plastics at the federal level , at the state level and the local level. And , you know , we also do our beach cleanup program and a lot of public education and our beach cleanups actually really inform what kind of policies we're going for. Because again , despite the claims about recyclability , about plastics , what we find at our beach cleanups is 85% single use plastics. And that's pretty constant year after year. And here in San Diego County , we do over 200 beach cleanups a year. So we really have good data. We ask every volunteer to collect data on what they pick up. And , you know , we have over 12,000 volunteers a year. Join one of our beach cleanups and.
S1: We hear single use plastics.
S5: They're made from plastic polymers which come from fossil fuels such as oil and gas. And it's really important to kind of make that distinction. And I think this lawsuit against Exxon is already helping to raise awareness about that. Because when you think of ExxonMobil , I think most of us think about oil and gas. But plastic is oil. It's made from oil. Our coastal communities really are up in arms when there's an oil spill. There was an oil spill a few years back in Orange County , and it's a really big deal. It closes beaches , it kills wildlife , and people get really pissed about it. Rightly so. So when we see plastic on our beaches or plastic in our environment , or plastic bags flying around , those are oil. I think it's , you know , it's an important connection to make that every single piece of plastic in our environment is basically akin to a miniature oil spill. Mhm.
S3: Well , and I.
S1: Want to be specific too. So on the beaches you're finding water bottles , you're finding plastic grocery bags. What else are you finding. Sure.
S5: Sure. So for the first time actually last year , plastic fragments including styrofoam fragments were the top item found. You know , we found over 60,000 styrofoam fragments in plastic fragments. And they're so small that at this point , we can't even tell what they are or what they were. And that's a , you know , that's an important connection to make about plastics as well , is that they don't biodegrade. They just break up into smaller and smaller and pieces until they become microplastics and even smaller than that , nano plastics and stick around and , you know , they're in our bodies. They're they're in our brain tissue. They're in our , you know , women's placentas , men's testicles. So it's a real problem that these , these plastics , you know , they don't really have an end of life strategy and they stick around and pollute for thousands of years. So that's again a reason that informs our advocacy is , yes , we do these beach cleanups. And yes , we we love getting people together to give back and clean up our beaches and our environment. But we really shouldn't have to do that. We don't want to do beach cleanups. What we want is clean beaches and a clean environment and clean water , and we can't have that if we're not taking the fight to the plastic production and plastic producers to really turn off the tap and make less plastic. Mhm.
S3: Mhm.
S1: Well , can plastic be used as oil or fossil fuel at all. I mean , do you know. Yeah.
S5: Yeah. I mean , that's that's one of the things that the fossil fuel giants like Exxon are claiming , you know , they're they're pushing this idea of advanced recycling or chemical recycling , which basically amounts to incinerating plastic and kind of turning it back into something that's akin to a fossil fuel or natural gas. But , you know , Exxon's held the patent on this technique since the late 70s. So why are they trying to sell it to us ? Now ? What we know is really , you know , in the US , 5% of plastics get recycled , and worldwide only 10% of plastics have ever been recycled. So those are shockingly low numbers. Based on what kind of what the lies that we've been told by the producers that recycling is a sustainable solution to plastic. So whatever we do with plastic , there's no true viable recycling or end of life strategy for this material that sustainable And what we really need to do is make less of it.
S3: Well , you.
S1: Know , given all of your efforts with the organization , what are your thoughts about having this ExxonMobil lawsuit going and the plastic bag ban happening ? Do you feel like you all are making some some big strides here ? Definitely.
S5: I mean , I think over our history , as you know , 40 year history , we've won many battles. But I think it's clear and , you know , I don't want to downplay our success , but overall we're losing the war against plastics and and really the climate change crisis that it fuels because plastic and oil are the same thing. And so , you know , this this lawsuit against Exxon is really important. And again , I don't know how what the outcome is going to be , but just the fact that we filed a lawsuit is really important because we need we really need the public to understand the lies that we've been told about plastic recycling and that plastics can be sustainable. And we really need to look at bigger solutions that are comprehensive and include making less plastic in the first place. The in. The best place to start with that is single use plastics. The idea of a of using a thing once and throwing it away is a very modern concept. So now if we take it down to the state bag ban , it's this incremental change that we need. And I know it might seem inconvenient sometimes to have to , you know , not use a throwaway item and maybe use a reusable one , but it's a lot more convenient than the existential threats that plastics and fossil fuel is causing to really future generations. So I think if we think about it like that , it's a very small thing to ask Californians to do to bring their own bags to the grocery stores. Yeah.
S3: Yeah. Well , do.
S1:
S5: Basically , thanks to this new bag ban bill , starting in 2026 , grocery and convenience stores will only be able to sell you recycled paper bags at checkout , so no more of those thicker ten cent plastic bags. It really no more plastic bags of any type at checkout. And that's a big improvement. I mean , first and foremost , we're getting rid of thousands and thousands and thousands of unnecessary single use plastic bags and all the pollution that comes with them. And then second , we've found that when only paper bags are offered , shoppers are more inclined to bring their own reusable bags. And , you know , in my humble opinion , that's the real objective of this legislation , whether we're talking about the original bag ban or this version 2.0. I mean , yes , a recycled paper bag is a better alternative than a plastic bag , but ultimately a reusable bag wins. And the more times we use the same bag , the better the environmental outcome is compared to using a disposable bag. Every single time.
S1: You refer to this current bag ban as 2.0.
S5: So the current law requires grocery and convenience stores to sell you either a recycled paper or a quote unquote reusable bag at checkout , and they charge you usually $0.10. The problem is that reusable bag was arbitrarily defined in the law , and what we ended up with were thicker plastic bags that , while technically reusable , are mostly being treated the same as a single use plastic bag. So this SB 1053 that the governor just signed , it just basically takes reusable bags out of the game plan for grocers and I should say , grocery stores. The grocery association supported this , which is important to note. So now you know , basically what the authors of the bill found and when it went through the committee process and was amended , they found that , you know , however , we define reusable bag is going to create some kind of loophole or unintended consequence similar to this original bag ban. So instead they just took that out and said , you know what ? People need to either bring a reusable bag to the grocery store or they will get offered a recycled paper bag. Mhm.
S3: Mhm.
S1: Well , in addition to this new statewide ban , there are some local cities who have already created various bans on plastics and styrofoam. Your organization played a large role in those. Tell me about that. Sure.
S5: Sure. So our chapter's been at the forefront of efforts to pass local plastic laws for over a decade , and we either lead or been part of a coalition to support all of these city level ordinances to restrict harmful single use plastics that pollute our waterways , poison our communities , and blight our neighborhoods. Um , currently in San Diego County , every coastal city except Coronado has at least one plastic law on their books , as well as two non coastal cities , San Marcos and Vista. Currently , we are actively campaigning in la mesa , which would be another inland city , and then Chula Vista as well , and Coronado to some extent to get these get new laws passed and these local plastic laws , you know , they they typically they started as plastic bag bans. We have some plastic bag bans that extend the state law to all businesses within city limits , not just the grocery and convenience stores. And then there's plastic straw bands of various types. We've got a helium balloon bands in Encinitas , Solana Beach , in Del Mar. We've got various skip the stuff laws. Those are laws that prohibit restaurants and businesses from just handing out disposable food where accessories like straws and utensils and ketchup packets without people asking for them. So you just have to ask for those. That's also a state law. Now , as we campaign and as we learn from the success or maybe hardships of each of these local laws , we kind of come back to the next city or even the same city and propose , you know , fixes better policies , just like this new bag ban , which is kind of fixing the consequences of the old. So the newer , sweeter laws we're seeing are really promising , including like in Carlsbad , which passed an ordinance that just basically said any disposable food wear needs to be compostable. So now you just don't really have single use plastics being handed out. All over Carlsbad at every restaurant , and that's a huge difference. Really , Carlsbad is the only place in the county where if you order an iced coffee from Starbucks , you're going to receive it in a fiber based cup and not a plastic one. Hmm.
S3: Hmm. Well , and do you.
S1:
S5: I think the local bands alone are not. They're never going to be comprehensive enough to really solve this problem. There's cities are limited in what they can actually legislate. They can't just , you know , ban everything. But when we see local action , it ends up having a snowball effect that results in state or even federal action. You know , the bag ban we've been talking about over 100 cities , passed a local bag ban ordinance before the state took it up and did it themselves. So when when we do this local action , it not only contributes directly to less plastic in our ocean locally , it also kind of operates as an incubator for better plastic pollution policies on a larger level. Yeah.
S3: Yeah.
S1: And so it needs to happen on a state level.
S5: And we can look at SB 54 , which is a kind of a more comprehensive state bill that was passed a couple years back in California. That's only starting to come into effect today. But basically , rather than just kind of taking a piecemeal approach and trying to ban one category over another , SB 54 just basically requires these large goals to be met by 2032 25% total reduction of single use plastic packaging and food wear. Statewide 65% recycling rate of single use plastic packaging and food wear statewide , and then 100% of all single use packaging and footwear must be recyclable or compostable by 2032. I think that is kind of a more comprehensive way to go. I think we should still , on the state and local level , still look at the most offensive categories of plastics , like bags , like styrofoam , that we have the data to show end up in our environment the most often and still work to get those prohibited or regulated. But ultimately we need to turn off the tap. We need total reductions in single use plastics. So I think that law , SB 54 , kind of , while not being perfect , paves the way for what I hope to see more of in the future. I should say the law also requires plastic packaging and food web producers to actually pay fees based on how much of the covered materials they produce , and that funding is going to be spent on not only implementing the requirements of the law , those reductions , but also , you know , reimbursing state and local agencies for the costs.
S3: Yeah , well.
S1: A lot of information there.
S5: Org and if you go to that home page and scroll down , you'll see a little blurb that basically says San Diego County Plastic Law Database. This database , it includes every single California plastic law that applies statewide. And it also includes every single city level plastic law in San Diego County. You know , it not only includes what the law entails and where it applies. It also includes information for who to contact. If you happen to be in a city with a plastic law or a place where a state law is is applicable , which is pretty much everywhere , and you're finding that those laws are not being followed or ignored , it has who you can report it to.
S1: I've been speaking with Mitch Silverstein , policy manager at Surfrider San Diego County chapter. Mitch , thanks for joining us.
S5: My pleasure. Thanks for having me , Jade.
S1: That's our show for today. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch Evening Edition tonight at five for in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. Also , we want to hear from you. Rents are high here and for the moment , slightly cheaper in Tijuana. So have you moved across the border for a lower cost of living ? Or if you live in TJ ? Are you finding things to be more expensive nowadays ? Share your experience with us at (619) 452-0228. Or you can email us at midday at pbs.org. We just might ask you to join our upcoming conversation about the cost of living. I'm Jade Hindman. I hope you'll join me again tomorrow for a show on the arts and culture scene. Bye for now and thanks for listening.
