On April 17 2020, a lawsuit seeking to reinstate protections for Bristol Bay was dismissed. This lawsuit was filed against the EPA by the Bristol Bay Coalition in an effort to secure protections under the Clean Water Act for an area that is central to the community’s salmon fishing and economy. This is the same area that is downstream of the proposed Pebble Mine.
Bristol Bay is located along the coast of Southwest Alaska and is home to a largely Alaskan Native population consisting of primarily Yup’ik Eskimo, Alutiiq and Athabaskan tribal members. These communities rely on subsistence fishing to supplement much of their diet. Subsistence practices and traditions connected to the Bristol Bay landscape are a key part of the community’s culture and have been passed down for generations.
The area contains the world’s largest salmon fisheries and generates approximately 42% of the world’s wild salmon harvest. The Bristol Bay fishing industry accounts for more than 14,000 jobs in the area in connection to the harvesting of salmon and outside tourism.
The Pebble Mine proposal would be the largest mining complex in the United States. The proposed mine would span 20 miles and include containment ponds holding up to 10 million tons of mining waste. If built it would be located at the head of two major rivers that feed into Bristol Bay, posing a high risk of pollution. Mining industry accidents happen at even the most carefully managed facilities.
For example, the Mount Polley Mine disaster of 2014 took place at a mining operation built by the same contractors involved in Pebble Mine. It released years of mining waste into the area’s rivers, leaving behind high amounts of heavy metals like arsenic. Such pollution would have a similarly devastating impact on the Bristol Bay salmon population. There is simply not enough proper testing and awareness of long-term risks presented by the mining company to ensure a mining plan that would protect the Bristol Bay ecosystem.
Pebble Mine threatens the livelihood of countless local community members and businesses via this potential destruction of Bristol Bay. Day In Our Bay, a community-based digital storytelling project offers glimpses into these threatened livelihoods of Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC) shareholders. William Evanoff, from Nodalton, Alaska, explains that his family subsists on salmon fishing. It is a key part of a summer tradition he shares with his kids. Mel Brown, from Anchorage, believes that responsible development of Bristol Bay is one that cares for these resources as well because they are important to pass down to his grandchildren.

So Why Should Non-Bristol Bay Residents Care?

This environmental issue is not limited to the wellbeing of the salmon population. It is intertwined with a human community’s well being. The livelihood and long-term health of Bristol Bay residents is at risk with the construction of Pebble Mine. These people have built an economy based around sustainable management of their natural resources.

What is the status of the Pebble Mine?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was supposed to release the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Pebble Mine this summer. However, the COVID-19 epidemic may delay its release and a final determination about whether it is permissible under the Clean Water Act. .

So what can we as concerned citizens do about this?

It is crucial to stay updated on Pebble Mine’s permitting process for those that are able to, especially during this time where Bristol Bay community members are also grappling with the COVID-19 epidemic’s effects on personal health and impact on the area’s fishing economy.
Savebristolbay.org offers timely news updates on the situation and also has numerous fact sheets about the proposed mining operation’s risks to the community. There is also a timeline of all that the Bristol Bay Coalition has managed to achieve in the past 10 years.
People can also write and sign the ”Stop Pebble Mine” petition to President Trump asking to stop the progression of the permits process of Pebble Mine. Since the Army Corps of Engineer’s comment period is complete, this petition is another way to make voices heard. By signing and sharing the petition with everyone, the fight against Pebble Mine advances can be brought to the public’s attention.

Grocery markets are stripped of toilet paper, yeast, pasta, and most other preserved goods. Carts are over-filled with excess supplies, passerbys wondering just how many people that one shopper is going home to.

These times are unprecedented, but people going hungry isn’t. The way in which Americans shop for groceries has changed since the COVID-19 outbreak began in early March. Food prices even jumped 0.5 percent in February, the most since May 2015, likely driven by Americans stocking up. The differences between food hoarders, who’s main fear is exposing themselves during a weekly grocery store run, and those who are scraping by to put food on the table due to access and legislation issues is polarizing amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Truthout, a nonprofit news organization covering social justice stories, unearthed the reality for 30,000 residents in West Jackson, Mississippi. There is no grocery store in the city, so buying food is already a burdensome task in ordinary times. Once their lone grocery store closed last year, Dollar General was the only store selling food. This February, it, too, closed its doors. Now, the nearest grocery store is five miles away, too far for many low-income residents lacking reliable transportation options.

These residents worry about finding enough food. On March 25, the city of West Jackson issued a statement preparing their residents for anticipated healthcare collapses and a dwindling of their food supply chain, increasing worry amongst on an already hard-stricken community. Luckily, Cooperation Jackson, a Black economic empowerment and democracy group, has made food sovereignty as a key aspect of its program. Before COVID hit, and even more so now, the group is promoting farm cooperatives and securing the finances to reopen a grocery store in the city.

One of the community gardens being started in West Jackson, Mississippi.

Food deserts pocket urban centers around the nation, which are also the epicenter of the most severe virus outbreaks. In these uncertain times, organizations are leading efforts of food access and equality for those who need support. Several urban hubs have implemented food pick-up and grab-n-go practices for their students. Cities with major public school systems such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Atlanta have implemented these programs.

Schools are a food oasis for many families. According to NPR, nearly 30 million children in the U.S. rely on schools for free or low-cost meals—but all of those children are now at home. The school lunch program is the second-largest anti-hunger initiative in the country, following SNAP/food stamps. While schools are closed, school leaders are still working to ensure kids have food to eat.

Unfortunately, children who live far from such pick-up programs remain at risk. Students don’t necessarily live near their school, revealing some unforeseen problems in the current grab-and-go method. In fact, the number of New York City parents taking advantage of free meals has dropped. Because of this and limiting exposure, other cities are beginning school lunch deliveries. Loudoun County Public Schools in Virginia and the Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township in Indiana are using buses to deliver meals to students. The city of Cambridge, Mass. is also delivering food to neighborhoods in need.

A Colorado kitchen manager fills grab-and-go bags early Tuesday morning, preparing for the meal delivery service.

The federal government is also beginning to help in the most recent stimulus package. Lawmakers included $450 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to buy and help distribute food to food banks. Donations from restaurants have also risen, whether they were forced to close or transition to take-out only.

How can you help improve food security for those who need it most? Beyond staying home, reconsider buying items with “WIC” labels next to the price when you’re out shopping. The WIC Program, or Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, is run by the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service. It provides nutritious food to low-income pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, as well as infants and children up to five. According to the USDA, during the 2018 fiscal year, about 6.87 million people received WIC benefits–more than half of that total being children.

Purchasing foods with the WIC label might limit the options for those who have to buy WIC products under the SNAP program. These benefits cannot be substituted and also differ by state, so I urge you be mindful of your own purchasing of these items. Participants receive state-written checks or vouchers to purchase specific foods each month. Foods under the program intend to supplement a healthy diet including iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, dairy products, peanut butter, and dried or canned goods.

Even if you’re safe at home, people are working hard to make sure families can access food, and there needs to be greater attention to these realities. You can take action in your own home and when you do have to make that weekly food run. Food pantries nationwide are still operating, so if you find yourself with food you don’t need, donate! Educate yourself on your own state’s food stamp and WIC policies, so you can be more mindful in the store. You are helping those who don’t have these options by shopping smarter.

Coronavirus does not discriminate based on age, income, or nationality. Some (most notably New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Madonna) have gone so far as to call the virus the “great equalizer”. Anybody who interacts with anybody else could potentially contract the virus. But to claim that the pandemic impacts everyone equally glosses over the massive resource disparities minority groups experience in the face of COVID-19. This pandemic is a sharp reminder of how race, class, and capitalism intersect in public health.

To start, Black communities in the United States are being hit harder by coronavirus than anyone else. Black Americans have contracted and died from Coronavirus at an alarming rate compared to other demographic groups. In Chicago where the population is 30% Black, COVID-19 deaths have been 70% Black. In Milwaukee where the population is 26% Black, COVID-19 deaths have been 81% Black. Residents of the Bronx, a predominantly Black and Latinx borough, have higher death rates than any other borough due to high rates of diabetes, asthma and hypertension, and other illnesses linked with coronavirus complications. Wisconsin Commissioner of Health Jeanette Kowalik explained: “African Americans in Milwaukee also face other socioeconomic challenges that can impact a person’s health. We must remember now and in the future that public health goes beyond just diagnosis and treatment and should be considered more holistically.”

Environmental racism is at the core of why Black Americans, among other minority groups, are particularly affected by the Coronavirus. The most likely groups to be affected by particulate-matter pollution are predominantly Black, Hispanic, and low-income communities. A new nationwide study just released showed that Coronavirus patients in areas with high levels of particulate-matter pollution are more likely to die from the virus than patients in non-polluted areas. Particulate-matter pollution results from industrial activity and fuel combustion, mostly from a high volume of vehicle traffic and closer proximity to factories, which reduces the body’s ability to fight off respiratory infections.

The CARES Act passed by Congress ignores these health disparities and their causes. The $2 trillion relief act, meant to offer financial assistance to those facing unemployment due to Coronavirus, did not account for anything besides the socioeconomic implications of the virus on an individual’s livelihood. 

While the CARES Act considered only income disparities in its relief packages, progressive lawmakers pushed for Congress to consider other factors, like race, in distributing the funds. Prior to the signing of the CARES Act, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), prominent Democratic-socialist New York State Representative, advocated for a reparations-based relief act that would account for the effects of the pandemic on marginalized communities. AOC took to her Twitter account to express her concerns, tweeting:  

While the first round of COVID-19-related federal aid addresses the financial burden of unemployment on all working class Americans, it did not acknowledge the burden that Coronavirus places on higher-risk populations beyond finances.  

We need legislation that addresses the inequity in our healthcare system. With specific groups being hit hardest by the pandemic, it is important that Congress take into account factors beyond employment in their aid packages. Race-based reparations have long been considered to combat the legacy of slavery and discrimination against African Americans with financial compensation. In the face of the pandemic, now is the time to offer the long-deserved governmental support many Black Americans need to take care of themselves, their families, and their communities. With the virus hitting hardest in predominantly Black neighborhoods due to environmental conditions that have caused worsened health conditions, compensation should be offered to acknowledge the systemic root of the problem. 

Join AOC in advocating for a reparations-based aid package for Black Americans. Your representatives can be reached at (202)-224-3121 (the US Capitol switchboard). They need to hear loud and clear from their constituents that everyone deserves a fair shot at life. In this case, throwing money into Black communities, equalizing healthcare systems, and bolstering individuals’ abilities to make it until next month is one tangible step. While it doesn’t correct the past, it is a step in acknowledging how far we have to go.

You’ve probably heard it: Whatever the problem is—animal cruelty, climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, or deforestation—veganism offers an answer.  Today as we find almost every aspect of our lives disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, once again the annoying vegans can’t keep their mouths shut.  Now, more than ever, is the time to ditch animal products — and, this time, for good.  

Plant-based diets can save healthcare systems currently at the mercy of the spread of the pandemic.  

As COVID-19 spreads rapidly worldwide, the phrase “flattening the curve” has taken the world.  In practice, that means slowing down the spread of the virus so as not to overload local healthcare systems beyond their capacity to treat people.  In other words, it’s about saving the healthcare system from collapsing when we need it the most.  

While preventive measures such as social distancing, wearing cloth masks, and hand washing help “flatten the curve,” the current pandemic reveals a crisis to which our healthcare system has been vulnerable: the neglected epidemic of preventable yet costly chronic diseases. 

Populations most susceptible to deaths due to COVID-19 and thus requiring in-patient care for treatment mainly include people who have other underlying medical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes.  In the U.S. alone, the medical costs associated with cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes, and obesity add up to more than $1 trillion each year. 

Why are the costs of preventable chronic diseases so high?  A 2012 study exploring dietary factors and cardiometabolic deaths due to heart disease, stroke, or diabetes found that 45.4% of these deaths in the U.S. can be associated with poor dietary choices, including high consumption of processed meats.  On the flipside, studies have shown plant-based diets are associated with lower risks of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.  

If the world’s population ate plant-based diets, there would be fewer people with chronic illnesses that make them more susceptible to the novel coronavirus, and health care facilities would be less burdened with patients—both those who have COVID-19 and those needing care for other chronic conditions.  

Plant-based diets can help strengthen your immunity.  

Having a strong immune system is always optimal.  As you hunker down at home for an indefinite period of isolation, you might be wondering how to keep yourself healthy and your immune system strong.  Evidence shows that eating a low-fat, plant-based diet rich in antioxidants and micronutrients can help strengthen immune defenses and reduce inflammation.  As the nation braces for the challenges ahead, even a small decrease in your risk of getting sick can make a difference for your community. While changing your diet today may not lead to an improved immune system tomorrow, starting sooner rather than later will keep your body’s defense against viruses and bacteria strong for the long haul.    

Looking into the future, we need to reduce chances of zoonoses—infectious diseases that spread from animals to humans—globally.  Living on plant-based diets is an individual action everybody can take.  

While the precise origin of the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 remains unclear, analyses of the virus indicate that it was initially transmitted to humans from an animal source.  Since many of the first cases were found in patients who had connections to a wet market in Wuhan, China, the Chinese government issued a ban on the trade and consumption of wildlife in late February.

The ban in China won’t be the end of the story, however.  Globally, the rapid destruction of previously undisturbed ecosystems due to urbanization and farmland expansion has led to decreased distance between humans and wildlife and thus increased chances of zoonotic diseases.  Indeed, human consumption of animals has been called a “‘cofactor’ in the genesis of new human diseases” by Gregory Gray, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Duke University.  The expansion of industrial farming worldwide has pushed small-scale farmers to remote areas previously inhabited by wildlife, thus increasing the contact between humans and wildlife species such as bats and chimpanzees.  If humans did not consume animals—both wildlife and farmed animals alike—there would be a much smaller risk of zoonotic transmission. The WHO recommends “reduc[ing] risk of transmission of emerging pathogens from animals to humans in live animal markets or animal product markets.”  

Ducks in cages at a wet market in Shenzhen, China.  Image source: Wikipedia Commons.

Wouldn’t such a goal be easier to achieve if consumption demand for animals and animal products did not exist at all?  While the pandemic will be over someday, the impact of it is here to stay. Our current collective human condition compels us to realize the fragile state of our existence.  As we reimagine the world and our place within it, we must not—and cannot—go back to business as usual. We have to fundamentally change the way we interact with animals. Unless we take actions to prevent pathogens from jumping from animals to us, the next pandemic will find us sooner than later.  

Globally, that means bringing the international wildlife trade to a halt, conserving and protecting wildlife habitats, and stopping factory farming, agricultural intensification, and deforestation.  For each individual, the most important action they can take is to stop consuming animals and animal products. Much like “flattening the curve” requires our collective action, the urgency to build a healthier world calls for everybody’s contribution.  The starting point is entirely your behavior—not sometime in the future, but today. 

As the world copes with a global pandemic, most concerns center on the healthcare system and the economy. But what about the resilience of our food system?

Despite a perceived shortage in supplies at local supermarkets due to consumer stockpiling, experts warn there is an excess of food, and it’s going to waste. Supply chains are struggling to adapt to the closures of restaurants, universities, primary education systems, and workplaces. Mid-western dairy farmers are forced to dump tons of milk because the usual markets have evaporated. Fruit and vegetable farmers are leaving ripe produce to rot in the fields. Tony DiMare, vice president of DiMare tomato company, estimates that 10 million pounds of tomatoes will go unharvested. 

Coronavirus will have both short- and long-term  impacts on food waste, especially in developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. In the near term, restaurants, wholesale distributors, and farms have the potential to generate massive amounts of waste; however, the long-term challenges rest on consumers as they stockpile food that will eventually “go bad.”

Why does this even matter? 

Food waste is a huge environmental and humanitarian concern. The World Resources Institute estimates that if food waste were a country, it would be the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States. Food loss (food wasted associated with the supply chain before it reaches retailers) and food waste (food waste associated with food retailers and consumers) account for 4.4 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. The negative impacts of food waste don’t end with emissions. Wasted food also means wasted labor, water, and land.

Even without a pandemic, American consumers waste about forty percent of the food they purchase. As consumers panic buy at supermarkets, experts suggest that food waste normally associated with retailers has shifted to households, potentially leading to more consumer food waste. As this shift occurs, will consumer stockpiling and closing of “non-essential” businesses lead to more food waste, as is feared by experts, or will people adapt to these conditions and efficiently use the supplies they’ve bought to make food last? 

Innovation, adaptability, and efficiency will be key to avoiding food waste on the consumer and industrial level in the near term.  Several pilot programs offer models for this kind of action.  

The British government is setting aside £3.25 million GBP ($4 million USD) in aid for food redistribution organizations to ensure that 14,000 tons of surplus food is redistributed to those in need. Rebecca Pow, British Environment Minister, said, “This funding will support people in need while ensuring that we minimize the amount of food which goes to waste –benefiting both society and the environment.” Restaurants around the United States are handing out unused food for free or at a reduced price to cope with reduced demand. Philadelphia-based organization, SharingExcess helps funnel excess food from grocery stores and restaurants to food relief programs such as Philabundance, Philly Food Rescue, and Share Food Program.

Wholesale food distributor University Foods has been forced to change its entire business model in the wake of the pandemic closings. With $3 million worth of inventory in their Southern California warehouse alone, the company is now turning to home delivery in order to distribute their goods. Governments, non-profits, and corporations are working together to deliver to those in need while also cutting the amount of food waste generated. 

History has shown us that food becomes more valued in times of crisis. At the household level, food that consumers usually let go to waste, such as fruits and vegetables, will be used more efficiently. However, if consumers begin buying their non-perishables in bulk , it is possible that once this is all over, foodwaste will dramatically increase on the household level.  Consumers might be throwing out a lot of food that is past its sell-by date. Scott Hurd, a food waste expert explains that “the sell-by date…is a tool for inventory control [by the retailer] more than anything else; it has virtually nothing to do with food safety.” But many people don’t realize that and, as a result, hoarding could lead to waste. 

In order to curb consumer food waste in the long term, education programs on sell-by and use-by dates would teach people that food doesn’t necessarily go bad, as many believe. A 2007 study found that nutrition and source reduction education is effective in reducing food waste. 

While many of the actions taken to remedy the immediate impacts of coronavirus on food waste are in response to the state of emergency declared by federal and state governments, they can serve as models for how we can mitigate food waste in the long-term. A net reduction in food waste is essential as the world adapts to a new “normal”. A normal that may include restructuring our food system.

There are 99 nuclear energy reactors in the United States, and more than half of them are at risk of closing within the next decade. This is surprising, as nuclear energy is the largest source of clean energy in the country, meeting 20 percent of total electricity demand in 2017. To put things in perspective, wind energy accounted for just over 6 percent of total electricity consumption. Solar accounted for a mere 1.3 percent. It’s undeniable that nuclear energy is an important part of the United States’ energy portfolio, and more should be done to save power plants from closure.

What would it take for these nuclear power plants to continue operating? It all comes down to money. Private companies that operate power plants are increasingly unable to afford to do so, but these companies are insisting that the environmental benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the high financial costs. Their solution is to ask the government to subsidize the plants for the benefit that they have on climate change and the environment. The U.S. federal government isn’t totally opposed to providing more support for nuclear power, having advanced a couple of bills earlier this year in support of the nuclear energy industry. But, it isn’t clear that policymakers are fully on-board yet either—this is where advocacy and people power come into play.

Generation Atomic’s free mobile app, Atomic Action, provides an easy way to get involved in the nuclear energy movement. Generation Atomic is a non-profit grassroots startup on a mission to “energize and empower today’s generations to advocate for a nuclear future”. Their app keeps users up-to-date on what bills in Congress pertain to nuclear energy advancement and encourages canvassers to ditch the traditional clipboard for a digitalized and more modern experience. Through the app, homeowners being canvassed by an “atomic activist” are encouraged to explore the benefits of nuclear. Tay Stevenson and Eric Meyer, the co-founders of Generation Atomic, are staunch environmentalists who believe that nuclear power can save the world from climate change. They also recognize that people may support nuclear energy for other reasons and don’t want to dismiss differing motivations. They’ve curated an experience that appeals to wide-ranging motivations such as adding more jobs and improving the economy, helping the environment, and affordable energy.

There’s a lobbying action that nuclear energy supporters can take right now on the app. Earlier this year, Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) introduced H.R. 6140, the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act. It would do two key things. First, it would establish a program to ensure that adequate supplies of high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) are domestically produced—something that the U.S. cannot do right now at commercial scale. Second, it would establish a public-private partnership to address regulatory and market challenges associated with advanced nuclear fuel. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the bill and sent it to the full House. Since then, the bill has been stalled. Now, support is needed to move this bill forward. With the click of a button, Atomic Action allows users to urge their legislators to support H.R. 6140 via Twitter.

Atomic Action rewards such participatory actions with points that they can redeem for Generation Atomic merchandise like t-shirts, mugs, posters, and more. The two biggest sources of points are canvassing and recruiting others—a signal that building a large base of supporters is essential to keeping the movement alive. So, download the app, and lobby legislators on H.R. 6140 and future nuclear energy bills; it’s not too late to save the fifty-something nuclear plants that are at risk of closing.

In Arizona, it’s illegal to ban the use of single-use plastics. Yes, you read that right, it is illegal. In 2015, the state legislature approved Senate Bill 1241, preventing all local governments from regulating the sale, use or disposal of plastic bags and other “auxiliary containers”. This means that Arizona municipalities trying to take a more aggressive approach towards tackling their plastic simply cannot. It sounds absurd, but doing so would have criminal consequences. 

Take the city of Bisbee, Arizona. In 2012, spurred on by a growing trash problem, the Bisbee City Council enacted an ordinance banning retailers from providing plastic bags to customers. However, in 2015, after Senate Bill 1241 was approved, the Arizona Attorney-General flagged Bisbee’s progressive ban on plastic bags as violating state law. The ultimatum for Bisbee? Give up your single-use plastic ban, or lose more than US$2 million in state tax revenue. 

Arizona is not the only state that has made bans on single-use plastics illegal. Today, state laws in 10 US states prevent local governments from implementing more progressive plastic reduction policies at the city level. 

States with Enacted Plastic Bag Legislation – note that 10 states have preempted bills preventing local governments from passing bans, fees, or taxes on plastic bags. (From National Conference of State Legislatures)

Proponents of these states laws argue that cities can still pursue voluntary plastic waste reduction programs. Citizens need to be given a choice, they say, such as reusing and recycling their plastic bags. They argue, enacting such legislation doesn’t mean that there can never be a ban on single-use plastics, it just needs to happen on a state level to prevent confusion. (Read: it will never happen.)

 In truth, most state legislators passing such laws disregard consumer interests. It is corporate interests that they are protecting. 

A deeper investigation reveals that these laws are modelled on legislation proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is an organization that claims to “protect business and consumer choice”, but works behind the scenes to draft model legislation advancing corporate interests – so much so that critics have called it a ‘corporate bill mill’. It has proposed bills that allow states to opt out of safe water drinking protections, withdraw from regional climate initiatives, and seize public lands for industry. Worst of all: ALEC has denied the existence of climate change. 

It should concern you that powerful corporate lobbies are taking away your city’s right to enact their own plastic reduction policies. ALEC is not the only group working with state legislators – the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA), which represents the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling sector, is another strong lobby. In Minnesota, the APBA and the American Chemistry Council spent $290,000 lobbying at the state level to make banning single-use plastics illegal – forcing cities like Minneapolis to backtrack on plastic reduction policies. After California passed its statewide ban on single-use plastic in 2014, the APBA spent over $3 million to put a reversal of the ban on the ballot. 

These state laws are out of step with the rest of the world. The European Union parliament recently approved a wide-ranging ban on single-use plastics, Vietnam and Hong Kong levy a charge on plastic bags, and more than 25 African countries have national bans on plastic bags. 

We must overturn such state restrictions. These restrictions limit your local government’s power to pass more aggressive plastic waste reduction policies – policies which are favorable to local municipalities. Instead, state laws give power to corporate groups that do not have your city and the environment’s best interests at heart. 

More aggressive plastic reduction policies have already substantially reduced plastic waste. In Washington D.C., a 2009 bag ban has led to a 50% reduction in single-use plastic bags. In Los Angeles, a 10-cent bag tax introduced in 2011 has reduced plastic bag use from 2.2 million/year to 125 thousand/year.

So what can you do? 

1. Check if your state has existing laws that make it illegal for cities to take more progressive action on single-use plastics. You can refer to this website to find out more. 
2. Petition your elected officials to overturn such “bans on bans” – collect signatures, attend city council meetings, and/or go to your mayor!
3. Support community-led or government-led plastic reduction policies for single-use plastics, or propose your own. The Product Stewardship Institute has sample policies you can use to encourage local policymakers to adopt.