Planet First Foundation 

Learn more about the reduction of single-use plastics and starting recycling programs in your workplace and beyond.  Our blog is a reliable resource for a broad range of energy topics, information, and news.

Search

On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The order directs executive agency heads to review hundreds of agency actions implemented during the Trump administration, including more than 120 related to energy and the environment. In addition, the order suspends or revokes, in whole or in part, nearly one dozen executive orders issued by the prior president directly tied to energy infrastructure.

A list of the agency actions that are under review include the following.

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The new administration will review 48 EPA regulatory actions issued under President Donald Trump covering each of the major statutes EPA administers, including EPA’s policy and technical amendments to the oil and gas industry new source performance standards under the Clean Air Act, the recent significant contribution finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the act, the revised definition of the Waters of the United States jointly issued by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act, and EPA’s recent transparency in science

  • Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): The new administration will review the Trump administration’s revisions to CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, which states and environmental groups have challenged. Revisiting these revisions is a priority for environmental justice advocates, who contend the revisions limit the ability of minority communities to participate in the permitting process.

  • Department of Justice (DOJ): The new administration will also review DOJ’s Environment Division final rule “Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties,” which prohibits including provisions in settlement agreements directing or providing for a payment or loan to a nongovernmental person or entity that is not a party to the dispute, except in defined circumstances.

The new administration’s review of energy/environmental actions span several federal departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Transportation and address an array of issues, including pipelines, resource development on federal land including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, national monuments, treatment of endangered species, and energy efficiency standards. The order also reconstitutes an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, with direction to develop metrics the administration would use to monetize costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions.

The revoked executive orders had been part of a push by the Trump administration to speed permitting for infrastructure projects, and include the following.

  • Executive Order 13766 of January 24, 2017, Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High-Priority Infrastructure Projects: This order allowed CEQ to designate certain infrastructure projects as “high priority” that would allow CEQ to set deadlines for permit milestones to streamline environmental reviews. It was intended to expedite the review of new federal permits or easements, including those necessary to build large pipeline projects such as the Dakota Access Pipeline, which required an easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to cross Lake Oahe in South Dakota.

  • Executive Order 13807 of August 15, 2017, Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects: This order extended the goal of streamlining environmental reviews to all infrastructure projects. It created the One Federal Decision doctrine for federal agency cooperation on environmental review and permitting for major infrastructure projects. It also directed agencies to complete the NEPA process within an average of two years and then expedite permitting following the issuance of a Record of Decision under NEPA.

President Biden also ordered a 90-day suspension of Executive Order 13920 of May 1, 2020, Securing the United States Bulk-Power System (BPS), and directed the Secretary of Energy and Director of the Office of Management and Budget to jointly consider whether to recommend a replacement order. Executive Order 13920 called for the Department of Energy to develop and publish rules and regulations prohibiting certain acquisitions, import, transfer, or installation of bulk-power system components where there is a credible threat that could compromise the BPS.

0 views0 comments

We understand that recycling can sometimes be confusing, and that it could be often difficult to determine whether you are doing things correctly.


Reduce, Reuse, Recycle


There are three key factors you should consider when thinking of different ways to recycle your materials—The 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.


Reduce: You can minimize the amount of waste you create by carefully choosing which kind of scrap to throw away. From making slight alterations to your shopping list or opting to go "paperless" in the office, you can significantly reduce the amount of waste we have in landfills.

Reuse: Whether at home or at work, many items you can find all around you can be repurposed for different things. Before throwing away used packaging and paper products, electrical equipment, and many other items, think of how they can be reused or donated to others first.

Recycle: Recycling is important in conserving natural resources and maintaining environmental sustainability. It greatly contributes towards the environment and could even help increase your revenue! Choosing to buy and use recyclable goods, as well as bringing them to an experienced and reliable company like Elgin Recycling & Scrap Metal are the first steps in sustainable recycling.


0 views0 comments

At the outset of efforts to combat the plastic pollution crisis, local and state governments across the U.S. are focused on banning single-use plastic bags. As these efforts gain headway, however, several studies have emerged challenging the effectiveness of bag bans. These studies – and their coverage in the media – are causing some confusion among consumers and legislators. Studies critiquing plastic bag bans don’t account for the broader scope of plastics – and they shouldn’t be taken as an excuse not to ban bags at all.

A more recent study from a researcher at the University of Sydney found that California’s bag ban led to a moderate increase in paper bag usage and pushed some customers to buy thicker plastic bags. The study suggests these thicker bags were purchased to replace the secondary use of free, single-use plastic bags as trashcan liners or to pick up pet waste. As a comparison of weight, the study reported that 28.5% of the plastic reduced through a bag ban was offset by shifting consumption to other bags.

The upshot of the Sydney study is that the California bag ban reduced plastic bag consumption by 71.5% – a huge decrease. It also took 100% of those plastic grocery bags out of the recycling system, where they bound up machinery and increased costs. The ban also kept them from littering neighborhoods and the environment.

While the Sydney study is cited as a criticism of bag bans, it also shows how successful they are in reducing plastic bag use. The study also indicates that bans don’t go far enough to end the plastic crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has meant a temporary return to single-use plastic – public officials and businesses throughout New England have curbed the use of reusable coffee cups, delayed plastic bag bans, and temporarily banned reusable bags from grocery stores. These decisions were made to protect public health, but in the past few months the following facts have come to light:

  • The driving force linking COVID-19 with reusable bags was not public health officials, but the plastics industry;

  • Evidence and statements from the public health community make clear that there is no known contact transmission of the coronavirus on any surface, including reusable bags; and

  • Even if the coronavirus were to be transmitted via contact, the virus has a longer life on plastic than other materials.