Comment box Scope: summary/information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none H.R.9676 - To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish National Plastics...
The bill was introduced by Larry Bucshon (R-IN) and Don Davis (D-NC) a few days ago.
The bill stands to make an impact by:
Tasking the EPA to establish national plastic recycling standards across the United States to increase the national recycling rate. Currently, there are more than 9,000 recycling jurisdictions in the U.S. with differing recycling practices.
Requiring a minimum recycled content mandate for plastic packaging of 30 percent by 2030. This standard will drive increased private investment in plastics recycling and incentivize the use of packaging designed for recycling. The U.S. recycling rate for plastic packaging is around 13% and the bill would more than double it by 2030, an important near-term target that would set the stage for even higher levels in future years.
Assigning the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a lifecycle study comparing the carbon impact and greenhouse gas emissions from comparable product materials that will guide informed policy.
Establishing a legal framework for new recycling technologies to support continued investment and innovation.
We'll see if it makes it out of committee, but it's good to see some bipartisan work being done to address plastic pollution at the federal level.
This isn't revolutionary at all, but it's a step in the right direction.
Thank you scroll_lock! Your posts are consistently thoughtful and informative. My first thought after reading the article was to go look up the bill. I will definitely give it a once over so...
Thank you scroll_lock! Your posts are consistently thoughtful and informative.
My first thought after reading the article was to go look up the bill. I will definitely give it a once over so thanks for making it easy to find!
I'm always skeptical when industry comes out in support of a bill, but this does seem like a step in the right direction as you said. There's certainly more that can be done like banning single use plastics, plastic silverware, straws and things like that but baby steps I suppose.
Based on what I've seen, I'll be reaching out to my senators and rep in support.
In this case, my spidy sense tells me it's a lot like the tobacco industry coming out in favor of total bans on televised ads for smoking: They're supporting regulation that forces them to do...
In this case, my spidy sense tells me it's a lot like the tobacco industry coming out in favor of total bans on televised ads for smoking: They're supporting regulation that forces them to do something in order to prevent regulation that would put them out of business. There will be less will for plastic-packaging bans if plastic packaging is more-recycled right?
In the case of smoking, it's because the mandatory anti-smoking ads were working, and the tobacco industry collectively getting out of advertising on TV prevented any one player from reaping the benefits to the expense of the other players.
Didn't the supreme court overturning Chevron seriously hamper the ability for federal agencies to do this sort of thing, or did I misunderstand what that was about?
Tasking the EPA to establish national plastic recycling standards across the United States to increase the national recycling rate. Currently, there are more than 9,000 recycling jurisdictions in the U.S. with differing recycling practices.
Didn't the supreme court overturning Chevron seriously hamper the ability for federal agencies to do this sort of thing, or did I misunderstand what that was about?
Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none The Chevron deference is a legal doctrine instructing members of the judiciary to defer to...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
The Chevron deference is a legal doctrine instructing members of the judiciary to defer to executive agencies in technical interpretations of ambiguous legal statutes. In other words, if the EPA and a judge potentially disagree slightly about alegal interpretation over something vague and/or technical, the judge was supposed to go with the EPA's interpretation as long as it was not otherwise exceeding their mandate.
The executive branch is still very much capable if interpreting the law. As long as they are instructed by Congress (in the law) to maintain oversight over a particular type of issue, they can create regulations in accordance with the law. The current Supreme Court has tended to err on the side of "Congress must fairly explicitly give you a mandate over this kind of thing for you to be able to regulate it," but they haven't abolished executive agencies.
Chevron deference is only relevant when these regulations are challenged in court. After the 2024 Supreme Court decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, judges have more discretion to make their own rulings on these matters, ignoring the precedent set by executive agencies. The "Skidmore deference" is still in place and instructs judges to defer to particularly persuasive interpretations by executive agencies.
This is just more PR for the plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council is not an altruistic organization. It would be different if plastic recycling wasn't a scam that oil companies came...
This is just more PR for the plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council is not an altruistic organization.
It would be different if plastic recycling wasn't a scam that oil companies came up with to counter public sentiment turning against plastics decades ago. One they have continued to lean into, this bill being just another attempt at same. People feel better if they recycle, it helps them live with the amount of plastic they consume and throw away.
As the NPR article (second link) mentions, they have also claimed that they plan to recycle 100% of plastic by 2040. Something which is so far from possible it's basically a joke. But it does feel warm and fuzzy to imagine it.
Comment box Scope: comment response, personal take Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Noted. Standardization of 9000 different recycling practices in different jurisdictions is a...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, personal take
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Noted.
Standardization of 9000 different recycling practices in different jurisdictions is a genuine benefit because it simplifies the recycling process for consumers and reduces the breadth of recycling machinery necessary to recycle different kinds of plastic nationwide. More standardized systems and equipment has the potential to decrease the cost of recycling at scale, which could make it more economically feasible to use higher quantities of recycled material in new products. This is undeniably a benefit.
I agree that 100% recycled material seems unrealistic. The bill doesn’t call for that though. It’s looking at 30%.
Personally, I support initiatives to ban the use of plastics under many circumstances, but that kind of legislation wouldn’t get through the current Congress. Realistically, it will take years or decades of materials engineering to replace plastics in most use-cases, and therefore we need to be recycling any plastic we do use in the meantime. It helps if that recycling process is efficient.
I encourage you to check out the NPR article I linked, or any of dozens of other articles that have been published in recent years explaining that plastics essentially don't get recycled for a...
I encourage you to check out the NPR article I linked, or any of dozens of other articles that have been published in recent years explaining that plastics essentially don't get recycled for a variety of practical reasons.
This bill won't change that, it lacks teeth. I'd be excited about a bill that imposed a significant tax on new plastics and then used the funds for green purposes. Removing plastic from the environment would be one great use of funds. Subsidizing alternatives to make them economically viable might be another. Funding research into how to deal with the increasing amount of plastic and byproducts in our bodies would be good too. The plastics industry would of course spend aggressively to make sure such a bill never passed or was hobbled before it did.
This bill, though, doesn't threaten them at all, nor will it help to solve the plastic problem in any significant way. I'll enthusiastically eat crow if we're recycling anywhere close to 30% of plastic in 5 years (a 600%+ increase if you use independent numbers). I'll use a plastic fork to do it :)
I was just going to say, considering the industrial context, this bill sounds like a betrayal of cherished republican values (selling to the highest briber).
I was just going to say, considering the industrial context, this bill sounds like a betrayal of cherished republican values (selling to the highest briber).
Comment box
H.R.9676 - To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish National Plastics Recycling Standards, and for other purposes. , or the "Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics and Recycling Innovation Act of 2024" aims to establish more regulations about plastic recycling in the United States.
The bill was introduced by Larry Bucshon (R-IN) and Don Davis (D-NC) a few days ago.
We'll see if it makes it out of committee, but it's good to see some bipartisan work being done to address plastic pollution at the federal level.
This isn't revolutionary at all, but it's a step in the right direction.
Thank you scroll_lock! Your posts are consistently thoughtful and informative.
My first thought after reading the article was to go look up the bill. I will definitely give it a once over so thanks for making it easy to find!
I'm always skeptical when industry comes out in support of a bill, but this does seem like a step in the right direction as you said. There's certainly more that can be done like banning single use plastics, plastic silverware, straws and things like that but baby steps I suppose.
Based on what I've seen, I'll be reaching out to my senators and rep in support.
In this case, my spidy sense tells me it's a lot like the tobacco industry coming out in favor of total bans on televised ads for smoking: They're supporting regulation that forces them to do something in order to prevent regulation that would put them out of business. There will be less will for plastic-packaging bans if plastic packaging is more-recycled right?
In the case of smoking, it's because the mandatory anti-smoking ads were working, and the tobacco industry collectively getting out of advertising on TV prevented any one player from reaping the benefits to the expense of the other players.
Didn't the supreme court overturning Chevron seriously hamper the ability for federal agencies to do this sort of thing, or did I misunderstand what that was about?
Comment box
The Chevron deference is a legal doctrine instructing members of the judiciary to defer to executive agencies in technical interpretations of ambiguous legal statutes. In other words, if the EPA and a judge potentially disagree slightly about alegal interpretation over something vague and/or technical, the judge was supposed to go with the EPA's interpretation as long as it was not otherwise exceeding their mandate.
The executive branch is still very much capable if interpreting the law. As long as they are instructed by Congress (in the law) to maintain oversight over a particular type of issue, they can create regulations in accordance with the law. The current Supreme Court has tended to err on the side of "Congress must fairly explicitly give you a mandate over this kind of thing for you to be able to regulate it," but they haven't abolished executive agencies.
Chevron deference is only relevant when these regulations are challenged in court. After the 2024 Supreme Court decision Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, judges have more discretion to make their own rulings on these matters, ignoring the precedent set by executive agencies. The "Skidmore deference" is still in place and instructs judges to defer to particularly persuasive interpretations by executive agencies.
Thanks for clarifying that!
This is just more PR for the plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council is not an altruistic organization.
It would be different if plastic recycling wasn't a scam that oil companies came up with to counter public sentiment turning against plastics decades ago. One they have continued to lean into, this bill being just another attempt at same. People feel better if they recycle, it helps them live with the amount of plastic they consume and throw away.
As the NPR article (second link) mentions, they have also claimed that they plan to recycle 100% of plastic by 2040. Something which is so far from possible it's basically a joke. But it does feel warm and fuzzy to imagine it.
Comment box
Noted.
Standardization of 9000 different recycling practices in different jurisdictions is a genuine benefit because it simplifies the recycling process for consumers and reduces the breadth of recycling machinery necessary to recycle different kinds of plastic nationwide. More standardized systems and equipment has the potential to decrease the cost of recycling at scale, which could make it more economically feasible to use higher quantities of recycled material in new products. This is undeniably a benefit.
I agree that 100% recycled material seems unrealistic. The bill doesn’t call for that though. It’s looking at 30%.
Personally, I support initiatives to ban the use of plastics under many circumstances, but that kind of legislation wouldn’t get through the current Congress. Realistically, it will take years or decades of materials engineering to replace plastics in most use-cases, and therefore we need to be recycling any plastic we do use in the meantime. It helps if that recycling process is efficient.
I encourage you to check out the NPR article I linked, or any of dozens of other articles that have been published in recent years explaining that plastics essentially don't get recycled for a variety of practical reasons.
This bill won't change that, it lacks teeth. I'd be excited about a bill that imposed a significant tax on new plastics and then used the funds for green purposes. Removing plastic from the environment would be one great use of funds. Subsidizing alternatives to make them economically viable might be another. Funding research into how to deal with the increasing amount of plastic and byproducts in our bodies would be good too. The plastics industry would of course spend aggressively to make sure such a bill never passed or was hobbled before it did.
This bill, though, doesn't threaten them at all, nor will it help to solve the plastic problem in any significant way. I'll enthusiastically eat crow if we're recycling anywhere close to 30% of plastic in 5 years (a 600%+ increase if you use independent numbers). I'll use a plastic fork to do it :)
I was just going to say, considering the industrial context, this bill sounds like a betrayal of cherished republican values (selling to the highest briber).