Plastic pollution is a growing environmental problem which kills countless animals every year and may be threatening human health. But the problems with plastic pollution are self-inflicted, and can be mitigated if we decide to do so.

That was the message presented by Ohio State University’s Sea Grant program educator Jill Bartolotta, Wednesday, at Cuyahoga Community College’s Westshore campus.

Bartolotta’s wide-ranging talk covered the ways that plastic enters the environment, the harm it causes, the failure of plastic recycling, Cuyahoga County’s plastic bag ban, and other efforts to reduce the amount of plastic pollution.

“Plastic is awesome when it is used for its intended purpose,” said Bartolotta.  As a material plastic is inexpensive, lightweight, and durable, with many important uses, including medical applications and food preservation. But plastic has a critical characteristic that makes it problematic for animal health, human health, and the environment in general.

“Plastic does not break down into anything useful,” she said. “Plastic was never intended to be in the natural environment.”

Discarded plastic that remains in the environment breaks apart under the effects of sunlight, wind, and rain into smaller and smaller fragments. But it never becomes anything other than plastic. And the smaller it gets, the more pathways it has to enter our drinking water and food.

Plastic that has not yet broken down has catastrophic impacts on the environment. Plastic bags and plastic film are swallowed by animals that mistake them for food. Plastic lines, netting, and balloons entrap animals, frequently killing them. And plastic litter fouls land and water across the planet.

Ninety-six percent of debris collected in beach clean-ups around the Great Lakes is plastic, said Bartolota.

But the greatest harm from plastic occurs when it is reduced to microplastic shards, pellets, or fibers. These particles are ingested by animals and people and while the impact on human health is still unclear, studies on animals have found that microplastics disrupt their hormone systems, nervous systems, and digestive systems. In animals, feeding, reproduction, growth, and movement are all affected by microplastics in the environment.

Microplastics have been found in plankton, the very base of the food chain. Plankton is consumed by small organisms, and those organisms are consumed by larger organisms, and so on, moving plastic up the food chain. Today, microplastics are found in our drinking water – bottled and tap – and in our food.

“You are eating, drinking, and breathing plastic every day,” said Bartolotta.

A significant source of plastic in the environment is the shedding of plastic microfibers from synthetic fabrics like polyester, rayon, and nylon. A single washing of a fleece garment can release between 10,000 and 100,000 plastic microfibers, said Bartolotta. Another source is beauty products. Although plastic microbeads were prohibited in some beauty products in 2015, they are still added to products that were not covered by the law.

Microplastic in the environment is impossible to remove, so we should take steps to prevent plastic from entering the environment in the first place, said Bartolotta.

Cuyahoga County’s plastic bag ban, which prohibits retailers from providing most plastic bags, is in effect now, although it won’t be enforced until the summer. A six-month phase-in period was included in the law to give retailers time to use stocks of bags they already had and educate consumers. While paper bags and reusable bags each have their own environmental impacts, they do not contribute to plastic pollution, said Bartolotta.

But bags are just one source of plastic in the environment, and despite growing awareness of the harm plastic is causing, the use of plastic continues to grow.  Since 2010 worldwide annual production of plastic has grown from 270 million metric tons to 359 million metric tons. Global plastic production is expected to reach 1 billion metric tons by 2040.

In 2015, researchers found that since 1950 humans had generated 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics.  6.3 billion tons of that total had already become waste. Of that waste total, only 9 percent was recycled.

Today, the percentage of plastic being recycled is almost certainly lower.

“Recycling has collapsed,” said Bartolotta. The loss of Asian markets for recycled plastic, contamination of plastic collected for recycling, and the expense of sorting the material has made recycling uneconomic. “It is cheaper to make new plastic than it is to recycle old plastic,” said Bartolota.

So, what can we do about plastic pollution? “The solution is super simple,” said Bartolotta. “Refuse and reuse. Say ‘no’ to single-use plastic, reuse what you already have, and buy less stuff.”

But moving away from our ‘throw-away’ culture won’t be easy. Even a step as simple and obvious as replacing single-use plastic bags faces strong opposition from plastic industry groups and some retailers. Many business leaders believe consumers won’t accept more expensive or less convenient substitutes for single-use plastic products, even if the substitution reduces plastic pollution.

Bartolotta disagrees.

Research and the results of a pilot project with a group of Ohio restaurants which reduced their use of plastic straws, boxes, and bags has convinced Bartolotta that consumers don’t oppose the changes.

In fact, customers’ responsive were “overwhelmingly positive,” she said. “Restaurants did not lose business, and wait staffs did not lose tips.”

Consumers who are concerned about plastic pollution can push for change by asking businesses why they are still using plastic, said Bartolotta. “If more and more consumers have these conversations with business, business will respond,” she said. “Plastic is in the environment because of us. All these problems are completely preventable.”

January 31, 2020

photo credits: 

seagull image: Cuyahoga County http://sustainability.cuyahogacounty.us/img_sustainability/en-US/BYOBags/BagAroundGull.jpg

beach image: https://pixfeeds.com/images/topic/2918/1200-2918-environmental-pollution-photo1.jpg

Plastic pollution doesn’t just threaten sea turtles and marine mammals – human health is at risk as well.

That was the message Thursday evening from a panel of environmental activists and government officials who spoke at the Rocky River Public Library.   The discussion was sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Bay Village and Rocky River Green Teams.

Panelists were Cheryl Johncox of the Sierra Club Ohio; Cuyahoga County District 11 councilwoman Sunny Simon; Sarah Damon from Surfrider Foundation; Sarah Mathews from Rumpke Waste; and Cristie Snyder from the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District.

Panelist discussed a number of issues related to plastic pollution, including growing health concerns, the role of fracking in plastic manufacturing, recycling, and House Bill 242. They urged attendees to become informed, take the problem seriously, take individual steps to reduce their use of plastic – especially single use plastic – and push legislators to enact policies that reduce plastic pollution.

Health impacts

Problems with plastic are magnified by a crucial characteristic: it never goes away. Except for the tiny fraction of plastic that has been incinerated, all of the plastic that has ever been produced remains in landfills or in the environment. Over time, plastic in the environment breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, but it never breaks down chemically. These tiny particles are now found everywhere, from Antarctica, where they have been deposited by the wind, to your drinking water, to your bloodstream.

Plastic particles have even been found in human umbilical blood, said Johncox. “It is in all of our bodies right now.”

The health effects of long-term exposure to ingested plastic particles are still being studied, but Johncox said that we already know enough to be concerned about the plastic loading in the environment. “The science is not new on plastics,” she said. “It has been coming out of Europe for thirty years.”

In the United States, however, the petrochemical industry and their lobbyists have suppressed research into plastic’s effect on human health, added Johncox.

Still, it is widely known that elements of plastic act as endocrine disruptors, interfering with many of the bodies’ essential processes, said Johncox. These toxins affect human development, she added. Infants, people with chronic diseases, and the elderly are especially vulnerable.

It is worth noting, said Johncox, that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents not give children food or drink from plastic containers whenever possible.

We Are Using More and More

While awareness of the dangers of plastic has been growing in recent years, the plastic industry has ramped up production.  “Fifty percent of the plastic in the world today has been produced since 2013,” said Johncox.

While there are several reasons for the surge in plastic production, a key factor has been the growing use of fracking – hydraulic fracturing – as means of drilling for gas.

“A side product of the fracking process is feedstock for plastic production,” said Johncox.

Fracking yields significant amounts of ethane, which can be converted, or ‘cracked,’ to create ethylene, a key component of many types of plastic. The growing availability of inexpensive ethane has boosted plastic production and is sparking construction of new cracking facilities. Many of these facilities are planned or are under construction in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, states where fracking is concentrated.

Recycling

Recycling is helpful process, but it is very far from the solution to plastic pollution, said panel members.

Plastic recycling rates are low, currently less than 10 percent of the plastic used in the United States is recycled. For plastic bags, the numbers are even worse. “Only one or two percent of people recycle their bags,” said Simon.

In the past two years there has been a major change in the world markets for recycled material.  Most notably, China has stopped taking recycled material from the United States. Sarah Mathews, of Rumpke Waste, said recycling is going through an especially difficult time, as the lack of markets restricts the material that they can sell. “End users determine which products can be recycled,” said Mathews.

As a result, cities across the country – including communities in Greater Cleveland – have limited the types of plastic they can accept in their curbside recycling programs.  Generally, in Greater Cleveland, the only types of plastic that are accepted are bottles and jugs. All other plastic ends up in a landfill or out in the environment.

But Rumpke remains committed to recycling as an industry.  “We are continuing to make investments on our recycling facilities,” Mathews said.

Plastic recycling is a last resort, said Johncox. “Our first choice should be to reduce – ask yourself, ‘do I really need this?’ If you can’t reduce, then reuse it. If you can’t reduce or reuse it, recycle.”

Mathews said recycling issues include contamination and wishcycling.

Contamination is a huge problem for recycling facilities, said Mathews. Reduces the value of other material, threatens the safety of recycling works, and damages recycling equipment.

Wishcycling is the practice of tossing non-recyclables into the recycling bin because you want them to be recycled, regardless of whether they actually will be recycled. Mixing recyclables and non-recyclables in recycling bins contaminates the contents of the bin, and often leads to landfilling of otherwise recyclable material, said Snyder.

“You can’t throw everything in the recycling bin and expect someone else to straighten it out,” said Snyder. “That only causes more problems.”

And even when plastic is recycled, it is not truly recycled the way aluminum, steel, or glass can be.  Plastic from bottles and jugs that is collected for recycling is not used to make new bottles or jugs. Instead, it used to create other plastic products, like park benches or playground mats. This is known as ‘downcycling,’ and while it reduces the amount of new plastic being produced, it doesn’t really remove the plastic from the environment. Eventually those benches and mats will break down and begin to leach tiny particles into the environment. By downcycling we have just delayed the process.  Far better not to produce those plastic bottles in the first place.

Bag Ban / HB 242

The potential harm and the low rate at which bags are recycled prompted Councilwoman Simon to sponsor a county ordinance that will prohibit retailers from providing plastic bags. the ordinance passed earlier this year and will take effect on January 21, 2021.

But Ohio state legislators are currently considering a bill – HB 242 – that would prevent local communities, like Cuyahoga County, from banning or taxing single-use plastic bags or other containers. The bill could pass Ohio’s Republican-controlled House and Senate before the end of this year and if it does it would prevent Cuyahoga County’s bag ban from taking effect. Sunny Simon warned that the impact of HB242, if it passes, will be “irreversible.”

HB 242 is part of a nationwide effort by the plastic industry to pre-empt regulation of plastic bags or other products, said Sarah Damron, of the Surfrider Foundation. Fifteen states already have pre-emptive laws on the books.

Many of these laws – including Ohio’s – were prepared with the assistance of the Progressive Bag Alliance, a plastics industry lobbying group that is fighting efforts to regulate plastic across the United States, said Damron. On its website, the Alliance describes itself as “The frontline defense against plastic bag bans and taxes nationwide.”

Simon said that she knew the pre-emption effort was coming, even as she worked to pass the county ban. Even if state law prevents implementation of the county’s bag ban, she said, passing the ban was worth it. “Raising awareness and consciousness about the issue is valuable, whether we get pre-empted or not.”

The county plans to conduct a public education campaign to inform consumers of the ban and explain the importance of the action. The goal of the ban, she said, is to change consumer behavior. “As consumers, we should reject plastic bags, straws, and other single-use plastic.”

If HB 242 becomes law, said Simon, the county will challenge the law in court, arguing that the law unconstitutionally interferes with the home rule powers of local communities.

What can people do?

The panel agreed that reducing the harm from plastic in the environment will require public awareness; changes to consumer behavior; and some forms of regulation, including bans, fees, and producer responsibility laws.

But Individuals don’t need to wait for government or industry to respond. Consumer pressure is one of the key drivers leading manufacturers to reduce packaging waste, said Damron, and continued consumer pressure can accelerate change. Individuals can stimulate change by:

• Refusing to accept single-use plastic packaging.
• Reducing and reusing products and packaging whenever possible. 
• Recycling properly to reduce contamination in the recycling stream.
• Opposing HB 242 – contact your state legislators and make your views known.
• Learn about plastics and share your information with others.

“We can all make a difference,” said Mathews.

August 30, 2019

American politics over the next 18 months will help decide the fate of earth’s environment, said a panel of environmental experts today at Cleveland’s Huntington Convention Center.

Christine Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey and former Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. David Orr, Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics at Oberlin College; and Shanelle Smith, Ohio State Director for the Trust for Public Land were the panelists at the City Club’s 2019 State of the Great Lakes presentation on Friday, June 21.

“The state of our democracy and the state of the earth are linked,” said Orr. We are not going to be able to solve our environmental problems unless we address our political problems.

America has made great progress in cleaning and protecting the environment in the past fifty years, said the panel. 1969 was a tipping point for America’s environment.

Awareness of the costs of unconstrained industrial pollution had been building since the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. But a major oil spill in Santa Barbara, California in January 1969, and a fire on the Cuyahoga River in June of that year boosted public awareness and sparked a flurry of federal environmental legislation.

Within six months Congress passed the National Environmental Protection Act and before the end of 1974 Congress had created the Environmental Protection Agency, strengthened the Clean Air Act, and passed the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Over the next decades dramatic progress was made in cleaning the nation’s air and water.

But that progress is now imperiled.

“We’ve made a lot of progress,” said former EPA Administrator Whitman. “But now we are starting to backslide.” The Trump administration’s large-scale rollback of environmental regulations is concerning. Whitman said she understood the need to review regulations to ensure their continued usefulness. “But to just do away with them because you don’t like them makes no sense.”

The early environmental acts were passed with the support of Democrats and Republicans and were signed by a Republican president, said Orr. “The environment wasn’t a partisan issue, it was a convergence issue, something that needed to be done.”

But now environmental regulations have become a partisan issue, he said. “Politically, we have to come together. This is the challenge of our time.”

Wittman said that the American public sees the importance of the issue, but the actions of the Trump administration are troubling. She called the refusal of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to sign a final declaration at the Arctic Conference unless all references to climate change were removed “mind-boggling.” The Arctic, Wittman noted, is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

“Without leadership from the top,” she said, “you are not going to get the necessary focus.”

Today, said Wittman, environmental issues like everything else, are viewed through a partisan political prism, not through a policy prism.

But while partisan differences are acute in Washington DC, said Orr, the American public is less divided on environmental issues than some people say. Polling data indicates that “Americans of both parties consistently support robust environmental policies. But the link between what we want as people, and what we get as policy is broken,” he said.

Whitman and Orr both believe that the 2020 election will be critical for the nation’s environment.

“This is the first election in my life when the environment will be a major issue,” said Whitman. “That is good.” She expects that the Green New Deal, proposed by Congressional Democrats, will spark significant debate.

“If we get an in-depth, intelligent discussion of what we need to do concerning the environment we will be where we need to be,” she said.

Orr said the upcoming election will determine if America’s politics are resilient enough to handle the crisis we are facing.

But citizens will need to force elected officials to address environmental issues, said the panelists. “Elected leaders won’t respond until the public demands it,” said Whitman, the former governor.

“Citizens need to make their voices heard,” said Smith.

So far, the public has not forced attention to the issues. “It is very difficult to get people to consider the cumulative impact of their individual behaviors,” said Whitman. “We need to get people together to agree that there is a problem, then we can start working together to solve it,”

Orr agreed that individual behavior is important. But the scale of the problem requires government action, as well. “The drivers of individual consumer behavior are conscience and public policy,” he said.

Many Americans do not appreciate the impact of the latest climate data, said Orr. “Citizens need to know their numbers.”

The latest data is alarming, said Orr. “If we were in an aircraft cockpit there would be warning lights flashing all over the place. But we don’t have a political warning system. We have a limited time to get a handle on this.”

We won’t be able to solve our environmental problems until we solve our political problems, said Orr. “This isn’t about making democracy great again. It’s about taking democracy to the next level, creating a democracy that works for everyone, democracy that is transparent, fair, decent, foresighted, and scientifically literate.”

“This process starts at the neighborhood level,” he concluded, “with us talking to each other.”

Global temperature anomalies averaged from 2008 through 2012

Recently, Cuyahoga County passed an ordinance that will reduce the use of single-use plastic bags by retailers.

This is an action that other communities have taken without causing any obvious harm. Many retailers in the county already have stopped offering plastic bags.

But that didn’t stop at least one local grocery store chain from opposing the ban.

That store defended their position in a website and Facebook post that was, to put it charitably, one-sided, misleading, and inaccurate. Their argument can summarized as follows:

• Most experts believe that paper bags have an equal or greater negative impact on the environment.
• Plastic bags account for less than 1% of all plastic waste.
• Estimates suggest that 50% of all plastic grocery bags are used multiple times.
• Paper bags cost 5 to 6 times more than plastic bags, which results in a 2 to 3 million dollar increase in our overall costs- an expense that many of our competitors in the online grocery retail and restaurant industry will not incur.

We responded with this:

As customers of your store we were deeply disappointed to read your misleading and self-serving post opposing Cuyahoga County’s recently-passed ban on plastic shopping bags.

While we certainly agree that the best practice would be for all shoppers to use re-useable bags, we were offended by your faulty rationale for opposing the ban. Many, if not all of your customers appreciate honesty and a commitment to the greater good from the organizations that they work with or patronize. Your opposition to this action demonstrates neither.

First, the purpose of the ban is not to reduce the “impact on the environment.” The purpose is much narrower: it is to reduce the amount of plastic that enters the environment, the food chain, and ultimately humans. Opposing efforts to reduce the use of plastics – which are now ubiquitous in the environment and are especially present in Lake Erie drinking water – because the manufacture of paper bags has an impact on the environment is truly an apples and oranges comparison. Paper bags are not persistent in the environment and, unlike plastic bags, every paper bag produced since 1935 is not still present somewhere in some form on the planet.

Dr. Sherri Mason, professor of chemistry at the State University of New York at Fredonia, has studied plastic loading in the Great Lakes since 2012. Last year at the Cleveland City Club she explained that the most recent sampling of Lake Erie found 46,000 bits of plastic per square kilometer of water, a higher concentration than found in any of the world’s oceans.

Second, while plastic bags may account for a very small percentage of plastic waste, that is not a reason to oppose action that will, even in a limited way, reduce the impact of plastic on our environment. Small changes in behavior over long periods of time can produce big changes in outcomes. Certainly, much larger efforts are needed to significantly reduce the amount of plastic waste in our environment. But this step, though small, is in the right direction and should not be opposed because it is not the cure for the entire problem.

Third, the fact that some percentage of plastic bags are reused is irrelevant. The concern about plastic bags are that plastic as a material is remarkably persistent and that plastic bags have long-term negative impacts on wildlife, the environment, and likely human health. In practice they are rarely recycled and their presence in the single stream recycling waste stream is problematic for recycling facilities. The harm that plastic bags cause is not reduced just because a bag is used two or three times before being discarded. The plastic used to create the bag will still be in the environment 10,000 years from now, regardless of how many times the bag was used.

Finally, your unsupported claim that the shift from plastic to paper bags will impose costs on you but not on your online competitors seems disingenuous. According to public reports, your store’s revenues in 2015 exceeded $500 million. A “2 to 3 million dollar” increase in your overall costs does not sound like a serious threat to the viability of the company. A grocery retailer that receives orders online and then delivers them has enormous cost penalties in the staff time it takes to fill the order (they are paying someone to do what your customers do for you for free) and deliver it (another service your customers provide to you for free). Are you seriously implying that this bag ban will erase your very significant cost advantage over online retailers?

Finally, many grocery retailers – including some of your competitors here in Cuyahoga County – have already stopped offering plastic bags. Other retailers here provide a small credit (5 cents is common) to customers who bring their own bags. Any loss of profitability that they have suffered as a result of their actions has not been apparent. If anything, this ban will level the playing field and reduce your competitive advantage, so it is perhaps clear why you are opposing it. The fact that your store has not taken proactive action regarding single-use plastic bags (and other forms of packaging) while others have is not a credit to your company. The fact that you now are actively opposing the ban is discouraging.

Plastic bags are not the most serious environmental issue that we face. But they are a convenience that has a surprisingly large potential for harm and they are something that we happily lived without for many decades and could easily live without in the future. This ban is a very small step, but it is a step in the right direction and it may help prepare the way for bigger, more impactful steps in the future.

Please take a moment to shift your focus from your own bottom line to the greater good and reconsider your opposition to this action.

For more information, see:

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/05/cuyahoga-county-council-passes-plastic-bag-ban.html

https://blog.heinens.com/the-plastic-bag-debate/

June 16, 2019

America in the 21st century: We don’t vaccinate our kids, but we spend billions of dollars each year on neurotoxins and other suspected carcinogens to kill dandelions in our grass.

Of course, dandelions are a scourge, even if they do sell them as mixed greens in the grocery store. As a poor kid growing up deprived in an inner-ring suburb, I remember the horror of having to play in yards that were infested with dandelions. The razor-sharp leaves, the disgusting puffballs that shot tiny seeds directly into our eyes, and the noxious yellow flowers still give me nightmares. And don’t get me started on clover.

So, today as spring turns to summer, I for one appreciate the stalwart souls among our neighbors who are ready to sacrifice the health of their children and pets – and the health of my children and pets – to defend us all from the yellow peril.

There’s nothing like a beautiful green, weed-free lawn. Nothing in nature, that is. A mono-culture of non-native plants, poorly-adapted to native soil and climate, of no use whatsoever to native birds and animals, and only kept alive by ferocious applications of water, fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. What could possibly go wrong?

You know that the chemicals being sprayed around are completely safe to use. That’s why the lawn care companies place little warning flags on your lawn: Keep Off, Lawn Chemicals Applied!

Nearly half of the pesticides most commonly used by lawn care companies are neurotoxins or are suspected carcinogens. While research continues, many are suspected of causing reproductive harm in humans. Clearly, small prices to pay for lush, green lawns that boost the value of our homes. And with luck, we may be around long enough to sell the places. If not, our heirs will appreciate our efforts.

April 22, 2019

Despite the enormous impact human development has had on the natural landscape of Ohio, many species of birds are thriving in urban areas, said Harvey Webster of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. But not all species have been able to adapt, and the continual evolution of the urban landscape will provide both opportunities and perils to the birds that live among us.

Webster’s remarks were delivered in an evening lecture last night at the Natural History Museum, where he is the museum’s Chief Wildlife Officer. His talk was part of the museum’s Explorer Lecture Series.

In Northeastern Ohio – as in almost everywhere else – the natural landscape is continually evolving in ways that either support or fail to support wildlife, said Webster. Birds – and other animals – are forced to adapt to these changes. The birds and animals that we see in our urban and suburban areas today have adapted successfully. If a species could not adapt, we simply don’t see it around.

The evolution of Ohio’s physical landscape opens new opportunities for wildlife to reclaim previous territory or to populate new territory.

An obvious example is the white-tailed deer. No one knows how many deer lived in Ohio in the years before European settlement. But it is known that by 1908, deer were effectively eradicated in the state. But in the 1920’s and 1930’s deer were reintroduced and by 1956 they could once again be found in all Ohio counties.

Four bird species that have adapted especially well to Ohio’s human-dominated landscape are gulls, hawks, falcons, and turkeys, said Webster. All are thriving in urban settings. Other birds that have adapted well and are regularly seen in Ohio include ospreys, turkey vultures, Canadian geese, and bald eagles. Currently there is a nesting pair of eagles along the Towpath Trail in Cleveland and another pair at a playground in Avon, Webster said.

Hawks do especially well in areas where people have erected backyard feeding stations for songbirds, said Webster. “We put out food to attract birds, because we like them,” said Webster. “But so do hawks.” While the hawks undoubtedly appreciate our efforts, we really don’t need to put out food for songbirds, said Webster. “They do very well without the feeding stations.”

Birds look for ways to exploit opportunities in the landscape, said Webster. Ospreys commonly nest on cell phone towers while turkey vultures roost there.

But while many species have adapted well to life near humans, some features of the urban landscape are devastating for birds, especially for migrating birds. And that’s a lot of birds. Each year in the United States, six billion birds migrate north, while 8.7 billion migrate south. Some migrations are truly epic.

Several species of warbler – a family of songbirds that usually weigh less than half an ounce – migrate from Ohio to winter feeding grounds in Mexico, the West Indies, or South America. One species, the Blackpoll Warbler, migrates a preposterous 2,000 miles over open ocean from its breeding grounds in Canada to its wintering grounds in Venezuela. At an average speed of 25 mph, the non-stop flight takes up to 88 hours. During the flight, each warbler loses about twenty percent of its body weight. Birds that did not gain enough weight in preparation do not survive.

No one is exactly sure how the warblers manage to find their way across the sea, but research indicates that they, along with many other migrating birds, navigate using the stars, the sun, and the Earth’s magnetic field. Scientists do know that the warblers fly to the coast where they wait for favorable winds to start their journey.

While warblers have to fly night and day to complete their ocean crossing, many bird species migrate primarily at night. This keeps them safe from predators, but leaves them vulnerable to a modern hazard: lighted buildings. Migrating birds use the stars to orient themselves during their flights. But on cloudy or foggy nights when the stars are not visible, they can become disoriented by building lights and crash into the building or circle it until they fall from exhaustion. A recent study estimated that as many as half a billion birds are killed in collisions with buildings each year in North America.

To reduce the number of migrating birds killed in building strikes, the Cleveland Museum of Natural History partners with the Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative on a program called ‘Lights Out Cleveland,’ which works with building owners to adjust their building lighting during peak migration periods to reduce bird strikes.

Lighted buildings aren’t the only hazards for birds, noted Webster. Wind turbines, power lines, towers, vehicles, and plate glass windows all take a toll. And, of course, cats. Each year hundreds of millions of birds are killed by cats in America, said Webster. “This is a significant source of mortality,” he said. “Something we could easily stop.”

Cat owners should take responsibility for their pets, he said, by keeping their cats indoors. Other actions that anyone can take to help reduce mortality of birds include placing bird tape on windows, volunteering with a bird-supporting organization, creating a mini-habitat or refuge, and planting native plants in your yard.

April 13, 2019

Recycling can help reduce the amount of materials that go to American landfills, but it won’t solve our solid waste problem.

That was the message of Kathy Rocco of the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District yesterday at the Rocky River Public Library. Rocco spoke to about one hundred Westshore residents about ways to reduce solid waste and recycle more effectively.

“Recycling is a partial answer at best,” said Rocco. “I believe waste reduction is where it’s at.”

Recycling is a popular activity, but it is far more complicated than many people think.  Tossing a bottle in a recycling bin isn’t the end of the process, it’s just the beginning. That bottle will be collected, transported, sorted, processed, and marketed. Each step is performed by a different organization, and most steps have to be profitable or they won’t be done. “Recycling only works if the material has value,” said Rocco. “Someone must be able to sell the material.”

Recycling is a dynamic industry that is constantly changing, said Rocco. At one time, the thinking was, ‘throw it in, they’ll sort it out.’  That attitude worked for a while, but today, with the volume of plastic and other waste material growing, markets for recycled materials disappearing, and profit margins shrinking, the contents of bins that are contaminated with non-recyclables are likely to end up in the landfill.

“When we say we will throw something away,” said Rocco, “away means the landfill.”

“Trying to reduce waste is a personal responsibility,” said Rocco. “We make choices every day with the things we buy, but we don’t always have complete information.”

Here is some information that Rocco shared to help people recycle more effectively.

• There are only three choices for disposing of solid waste: landfills, recycling, and composting.
• In Cuyahoga County, 43 percent of the solid waste collected is recycled. Six percent is composted.  The rest- slightly more than half – is landfilled.
• The five items that are most commonly recycled in Cuyahoga County are metal cans, cartons (juice, milk, etc.), glass, paper and boxes, and plastic bottles and jugs.
• Recycling programs are managed locally. Every community has different recycling rules. The availability of local markets drives many recycling decisions, so different communities face different constraints.
• Aluminum cans have the highest value for recyclers. “They have a higher value than steel,” said Rocco. “Aluminum cans are a great place to start recycling, if you are just starting.”
• The next best items for recycling are paper and boxes, including newspapers, cardboard, magazines, phone books, catalogues, mail, and printer paper. Shredded paper should not be added to recycling bins because it won’t be recovered at the Materials Recycling Facility and will only create problems when it blows around the machinery.
• The only type of plastic that should go in curbside containers are plastic bottles and jugs. Many other types of plastic are recyclable, but there is very little market demand for them and the company that picks up your curbside bin will almost certainly end up taking those materials to the landfill.
• Glass is highly recyclable, but the market for recycled glass is shrinking as manufacturers shift to aluminum and plastic containers. Many recycling firms now must pay to get rid of glass.
• “Many other items can be recycled, just not in curbside containers,” Said Rocco.  Scrap metal, household hazardous waste, aluminum foil, plastic bags and film, small metal items, holiday light strings, computers, tires, clothing, and construction materials are examples of items that can be recycled with some extra effort.

“The bottom line is that recycling is a stopgap at best,” said Rocco. “The real solution to our solid waste problem is to shift to reusable containers, especially to move away from single-use plastic containers. Recycling starts with you.”

For more information about recycling in Cuyahoga County, see the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District website at: https://cuyahogarecycles.org/

(Photo: The Ecologist)

April 11, 2019

Since 1950, humans have produced 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic. Nearly all of it is still in the environment, said University of Colorado biogeochemist Michael SanClements yesterday, during a presentation at the Rocky River Public Library.

“We have progressed from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age and are now in the plastic age,” said SanClements, who discussed the history of plastic which he researched while writing his book, Plastic Purge. In the book and at yesterday’s talk, SanClements described the evolution of global society from one where consumer products were made of durable materials like glass, wood, ceramics, and metal to a throw-away society characterized by the proliferation of single-use plastic.

Half of all plastic produced today is used to make single-use packaging, SanClements said. These materials are used for an average of twelve minutes, but they last essentially forever. While plastic fragments, it never breaks down completely, and after 70 years of increasing plastic production, the material is ubiquitous in our environment, with uncertain effects on human health.

Single-use plastics, like grocery bags, water bottles, and other types of packaging are an example of an ugly, unnecessary use of plastic, said SanClements. But plastic itself is not the issue. As a material, plastic is versatile, inexpensive, lightweight, durable and appropriate for countless beneficial uses, including medical devices, insulation, tools, aircraft components, auto parts, and others.

“Plastic is a powerful, important product,” said SanClements. “But it’s a lot like an invasive species. We have too much in the wrong places.”

And one of the wrong places is the world’s oceans, which currently contain an estimated 51 billion pieces of plastic. “This is a global problem,” said SanClements, “and as a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to help other nations.”

Worldwide, less than ten percent of plastic is recycled, said SanClements. In the United States, the percentage is smaller, especially since China stopped accepting U.S. plastic for recycling in 2018. Plastic needs to be sorted properly and be free of contaminants to be recyclable. Single-stream recycling programs in the United States, which allow people to mix various kinds of materials in single containers, increase contamination and make sorting much more difficult and expensive.

Material will be recycled only if there is a market for it, and right now, the U.S. economy has not developed enough markets to justify large-scale plastic recycling. Some plastic is burned in incinerators to recapture the energy contained in the petroleum-based products, but an estimated 85 percent of plastic used in the United States ends up in landfills or the environment.

As a society we need to differentiate between valuable uses of plastic and unnecessary, harmful uses, he said. He also believes we should make a greater effort to recover the energy stored in plastics by increasing our use of trash-to-energy facilities.

Single-use plastics are obvious candidates for replacement by other materials, he said. Sixty years ago, we had no single-use plastics, but we still had a consumer society that provided all the essentials for middle-class life. Solutions for replacing single-use plastic with other materials already exist, he said.

Reusable cloth grocery bags, refillable bottles for water and coffee, glass jars, paper bags, beeswax wrap, bars of soap, and reusable mesh bags for produce are a few of the simple alternatives that are readily available, affordable, and convenient, said SanClements.

“Nothing makes less sense than wrapping a cucumber that will last a week in plastic that will last a millennium,” he said.

March 22, 2019

I recently completed a training program about recycling conducted by the county Solid Waste District.  The purpose of the training is to prepare citizen volunteers to provide accurate information about recycling at community events or other functions.

Of course, when thinking about recycling, everybody has the same question: “Is this bottle recyclable?”

And, sadly, the correct answer is, “it depends.”

What does it depend on?  Primarily, where you live, and what arrangements your local community has with recycling facilities to dispose of the recyclables that they collect.  Even more sadly, the answer will change from time to time as the market for recyclables changes.  What was recyclable last year (or last week) might not be recyclable today. What’s recyclable in your town might not be recyclable in the next town down the road.

So, there’s that.

But I did learn a lot.  Here are ten things about recycling that you might not know.

1. Recycling is not the answer. Compared to reuse and reduction – the other R’s from the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra – recycling is wildly inefficient. It is costly, complicated, and too often not done. We would be far better off if manufacturers and retailers designed their products and packaging with ultimate disposal in mind and if consumers considered the cost of disposal when purchasing a product. And while recycling is not the answer, until we get better at reducing and reusing, it will be much better than not recycling.
2. Recycling is labor intensive and expensive. Tossing an empty bottle into a recycling bin isn’t the end of the recycling process, it is the beginning. That bin is going to be emptied and sorted – partly by machine, partly by hand – at a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) that is noisy, dirty, and dangerous.  Employees operate forklifts, balers, sorters, and other powerful industrial machinery to pull out recyclable materials.  And somewhere in the process is a line of workers hand sorting the contents of the emptied bins as they roll by on a conveyor belt.  The work is physically demanding, perilous, and doesn’t pay very well.
3. Single Stream recycling is poor policy. To make the process easier for consumers and to reduce the cost of picking up materials, many communities have adopted single-stream recycling, in which all recyclables are collected in a single container. This shifts the burden of sorting from the consumer to the recycling facility, increasing their costs and greatly increasing the chances that material will be unusable because it is contaminated. The general manager of a recycling company called single stream collecting, “The worst thing that ever happened to this industry, ever.”
4. Recycling is constantly changing. Because recycling is a market-based solution, it is constantly changing in response to market forces. Supply and demand rules recycling, as it rules every other industry.  As supply and demand fluctuate, the type of materials that can be recycled change. Right now, the loss of the Chinese market for recyclables is wreaking havoc on the recycling industry.
5. Contamination is a significant problem. Contaminated materials are impossible to reuse. The level of contamination in U.S. recycling exports was largely responsible for China’s decision to stop accepting U.S. material. In many cases contaminants have to be removed by hand, slowing the process and increasing recycling costs. Once contaminated, few items or loads can be decontaminated. Contamination damages recycling machinery and endangers recycling facility workers.
6. Failure at the start of the recycling process cannot be redeemed later. Material that is contaminated or mislabeled at the start of the process will never be recycled. It will probably go straight to a landfill.
7. Almost everything we make is recyclable. But we only recycle items that can be recycled profitably. Electronic items are routinely disassembled and their parts re-used. There is even a term for this process: De-manufacturing. Virtually every manufactured item could be de-manufactured. But most manufactured items are not because their component parts are not valuable enough to make the process profitable.
8. Economics drives recycling. No surprise here, but it is still worth noting that every step of the recycling process is evaluated on its economic merits. Factors that determine whether or not a particular item is recycled include the overall strength of the U.S. economy, the existence of a market for the material, the cost of collecting, the cost of sorting, the cost of equipment to prepare the material, the cost of decontaminating the material, and the cost of transporting. For many materials, only local markets work, as the cost of transportation renders more distant markets unprofitable. In the words of a recycling facility manager, “Like everything else, recycling is driven by money.”
9. Education is vital. Most people will do the right thing, if they know what it is, and most people think recycling is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, recycling rules change frequently and are not the same from place to place, so public education must be followed by re-education and more re-education.
10. Recycling is a process. When you toss a plastic bottle into a recycling bin, you are part of the process. The rest of the process includes hundreds or thousands of people making decisions about product design, marketing, packaging, disposing, collecting, sorting, baling, selling, and re-using.

The bottom line is that when we throw something away, there is no ‘away.’

 “We don’t throw it away, we throw it around.” – Diane Bickett, Executive Director of the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste District

December 15, 2018