Most live music fans have no doubt had the experience: you’re enjoying a concert or festival, only to get that guilty feeling at the end as trash is sprawled everywhere.
“It doesn’t need to be that way,” says Ben Kogan, a Woodstock musician and founder of Reusable Solutions, an outreach organization focused on eradicating single-use plastic and combating climate change.
Crab traps work a bit like Roach Motels: crabs crawl in, but they don’t crawl out. That’s good news for crab fishers’ chances of pulling in a good catch, but when traps get lost at sea, they become a menace to all sorts of animals.
With no one there to retrieve them, the traps continue to fish, says Ryan Bradley, head of the Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United, a nonprofit fishermen’s organization. “Marine life gets into the trap. Eventually, they can’t eat so they die, and then other marine life becomes attracted to it. They get into the trap, and they die. It just becomes this awful cycle of death.”
Derelict crab traps harm wildlife and disrupt other fishers, especially shrimpers. Bulky crab traps get caught in shrimping nets, tearing them open or blocking them from catching shrimp. Frustrated shrimpers, with nowhere to put the smelly traps, generally just throw them back, continuing the cycle.
But a group in Mississippi has found a solution: paying shrimpers a US $5 bounty to collect and recycle derelict crab traps. In just three years, the program has removed almost 3,000 crab traps from Mississippi waters. Crab traps are tagged, and those that are still in good condition are returned to their owners, while traps that are too broken down are recycled.
It’s a real win-win. Wildlife is safer, the water is cleaner and, says Bradley, who cofounded the program, there’s been a clear trend that shrimpers are encountering fewer traps.
The group, which includes the fishers’ association, Mississippi State University, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, recently published a paper expanding on the project’s accomplishments.
Alyssa Rodolfich, a graduate student with Mississippi State University, knows the central-northern Gulf of Mexico well. She grew up in the area fishing with her dad, a charter boat captain. But she hadn’t thought much about derelict crab traps until she started working with the incentive program as an intern.
“I didn’t realize how big of a problem it was until I was on the cleaning-up end of it, after a few months of removing, like, 200 crab traps at a time,” she says. “It was heavy and gross, and the amount of by-catch in the traps was a lot.”
At the same time, she was talking with shrimpers, learning about the problems derelict traps pose for them. Now working as the program’s manager, Rodolfich says it’s gratifying to see the results. “It feels like a big accomplishment, not just to see the amount of debris that’s been removed but also to see the change in attitude and behavior,” she says.
The incentive works like a bottle-redemption program. Participating shrimpers register for the program, document the traps they collect, and tag them before turning them in to a redemption site and documenting the drop-off to claim the reward.
“It’s not uncommon for our guys to turn in five, 10, 15 of these traps from one multiday shrimping trip,” Bradley says.
Chloé Dubois, the cofounder and head of the British Columbia–based Ocean Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit focused on marine debris, calls it “a great success story.” Her organization was not involved with the project but is advocating for a similar program to be piloted in British Columbia.
Dubois says redemption programs have historically been very successful at diverting waste products at the end of their life cycle. But in the ghost fishing and marine debris sphere, she says, the Mississippi program is a pioneer. “There aren’t many examples of programs like this,” she says.
Partnering with the fishing industry on the incentives and using the program to gather data on the numbers and locations of traps while also removing marine debris further sets the program apart, she says.
Bradley says his group has fielded calls from other communities hoping to develop similar programs, though he notes that some states have legal issues that make it difficult for fishers to collect traps that aren’t their own.
In the meantime, the Mississippi program is growing and expanding. With a recent grant from NOAA, they’re starting a new pilot project—paying shrimpers to collect all the other stuff they find littering the Gulf.
“We’ve seen everything from washing machines to toilets to tires to plastic bags,” says Bradley. “The other day, one guy told me he pulled up a shopping cart. So these are the types of things we want to get out of our marine environment.”
The proposal was simple.
Wary of mounting plastic in Virginia’s bays and waterways, a state senator from Roanoke wanted to allow localities to ban plastic bags. For years, the Environmental Protection Agency has known that fewer than 10% of plastic bags get recycled and that most wind up in the ocean, slowly becoming decomposing plastic that finds its way into fish and drinking water.
The senator, John Edwards, did not expect the pushback. In a committee meeting during the legislative session, five lobbyists came up to speak against the bill.
One, Mike Carlin, implored the committee to give recycling a chance.
“I believe that SB933 (Edwards’ bill) sends the wrong message to this industry, and is a deterrent to investment in our state, by banning plastic which can be recycled,” said Carlin, a lobbyist with the national Coalition for Consumer Choice.
Similar showdowns take place several times a day during Virginia’s legislative session. Despite the developing climate crisis, bills designed to curb pollution and emissions find fierce opposition in the growing, well-financed lobbies that have put down deep roots in the commonwealth.
Sometimes, the lobbyists represent companies that outwardly market themselves to customers as environmentally friendly.
This session, legislators proposed a number of ideas to make Virginia more green and to make it safer from harmful chemicals.
Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax, proposed a bill to ban the use of coal tar sealants — the thick, black goop used to coat asphalt on driveways and parking lots.
The sealants contain toxic compounds — polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs — that leak into the environment over time and have been found in Virginia’s waterways, according to reporting from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Capital News Service.
Del. Nadarius Clark, D-Portsmouth, proposed a bill to study whether Virginia’s highly active plastics industry was shedding “microplastics” into the state’s drinking water.
Another bill proposed by Edwards would have required water companies to tell the public when their drinking water was found to have problematic levels of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, the “forever chemicals” that have been shown to harm humans and especially children.
The bill was supported and presented by Chris Pomeroy, legal counsel for the Virginia Municipal Drinking Water Association.
One lobbyist spoke in support. “This is just asking for a community’s right to know if their water’s safe,” said Pat Calvert with the Virginia Conservation Network.
Carlin spoke against the bill, this time on behalf of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, another prominent industry lobby.
He was joined by a representative from the American Chemistry Council, who said that telling Virginians when “forever chemicals” were found in their drinking water would cause “undue alarm.”
The bill was tabled by the committee, which means it was killed. The votes to squelch the bill came from Dels. Michael Webert, R-Fauquier; Chris Runion, R-Rockingham; Rob Bloxom, R-Accomack; Tony Wilt, R-Rockingham; and Buddy Fowler, R-Hanover. All received A ratings from Carlin’s organization.
Tran’s sealant legislation also failed, as did Clark’s bill to study plastics.
Carlin did not reply to several requests for comment, nor did Brett Vassey, president of the Virginia Manufacturers Association.
Unsurprisingly, money is the big differentiator between the environmental and industrial lobbies. Most of the former are nonprofits, for which it is illegal to make political donations.
Trade groups, law firms and big Virginia companies like Dominion Energy have no such restrictions. All give freely to Democrats and Republicans alike, although donation data from the Virginia Public Access Project shows that Republicans benefit far more from industry-aligned lobbying groups.
For example, the Virginia Retail Federation, a lobby that represents Virginia small businesses, moved over $50,000 in campaign donations in 2022. The group gave mostly to Republicans.
“They’re lobbying year-round for their priorities, which is frustrating because we in the environmental space don’t have those kinds of resources,” said Connor Kish, legislative director with the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club.
A short legislative session sharpens the point. Industries can simply hire more lobbyists than environmental groups, outgunning them in a game defined by time and access.
In the most recent legislative session, 1,030 lobbyists had registered with the state’s ethics board. The number ticks higher every year.
Meanwhile, lobbyists are also writing their own legislation to beat back bans from environmentalists.
In 2022, Washington Gas pushed a bill that would ban Virginia localities from zoning buildings without natural gas hookups. Natural gas primarily is composed of methane, which accounts for about 12% of all greenhouse gas emissions.
The bill came through Terry Kilgore, a Republican in the House of Delegates whose campaign has received $22,000 from Washington Gas across his 30-year political career. VPAP data shows the largest donation — a $6,000 check — came the year he put the bill forward.
In a statement shared by his office, Kilgore said, “The impetus for filing House Bill 1257 was to preserve fuel choice and ensure a family’s gas stove cannot be taken away.”
A1 Extra! Luca Powell discusses the plastic polluting local waterways – A1 Extra is presented by 8@4 | A1 Extra
A version of Kilgore’s bill ultimately passed after it was reworked last August in a special session.
“Lobbyists have a tremendous influence in this place,” said Edwards, the Roanoke senator who sponsored the plastics and PFAS bills. “The General Assembly is free to make their own decision, but they’re heavily influenced.”
Edwards’ plastics bill was nixed by lobbyists from the Virginia Retail Federation. The lobby represents small and large businesses across the state, including Dominion, Home Depot and Target — companies that market their environmental responsibility to their customers.
It was also opposed by the Virginia Food Industry Association, which is funded by donations from such grocers as Publix and Wegmans. Publix actively tracks the number of plastic bags it saves on its website. Wegmans committed to eliminating plastic bags in its Virginia stores last summer.
Melissa Assalone, director of the Virginia Food Industry Association, did not return a request for comment on the lobby’s position against the bill.
Ultimately, Edwards’ bill did not pass either, as it apparently failed to persuade key Democrats on the committee, including Lynwood Lewis, the committee chair.
Lewis represents Accomack and Northampton counties on the state’s Eastern Shore. In his 18-year legislative career, he has received $10,000 in campaign donations from Troutman Pepper, another of the five lobbying firms that initially pushed against the plastics legislation. He also received $6,250 in campaign donations from the Virginia Retail Federation.
Lewis voted “nay” on the bill.
#lee-rev-content { margin:0 -5px; }
#lee-rev-content h3 {
font-family: inherit!important;
font-weight: 700!important;
border-left: 8px solid var(–lee-blox-link-color);
text-indent: 7px;
font-size: 24px!important;
line-height: 24px;
}
#lee-rev-content .rc-provider {
font-family: inherit!important;
}
#lee-rev-content h4 {
line-height: 24px!important;
font-family: “serif-ds”,Times,”Times New Roman”,serif!important;
margin-top: 10px!important;
}
@media (max-width: 991px) {
#lee-rev-content h3 {
font-size: 18px!important;
line-height: 18px;
}
}
PFAS or “forever chemicals” has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 are significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution.
The Oregon state House passed two bills with bipartisan support to address the growing environmental and public health impacts of single-use plastics. Both bills now head to Gov. Tina Kotek’s desk for her signature.
Senate Bill 543 will phase out polystyrene foam foodware, packing peanuts and coolers and prohibit the use of PFAS, the toxic substances nicknamed “forever chemicals” because of their longevity, in food packaging starting January 1, 2025. The legislation passed the House by a vote of 40-18.
Senate Bill 545 instructs the Oregon Health Authority to update the state’s health code to make it easier for restaurants to provide reusable container options. This bill cleared the House by a vote of 38-18.
On February 2, 2023 the Oregon Department of Agriculture officially adopted new rules enabling grocery stores, small co-ops and other retail establishments to offer sanitary reusable containers and refill systems.
Senate Bill 545 directs the Oregon Health Authority to undergo similar rulemaking to allow Oregon restaurants, and their customers, to do the same.
Although the subject may appear to not have any relation with fishermen and the fishing industry, it does: according to Tara Brock, Oceana’s Pacific counsel based in Portland, “plastics are overwhelming our oceans, killing marine life, and devastating ecosystems. The only way to head off this crisis is to start reducing the amount of plastic we create, use and throw away, and to start doing that as quickly as possible.”
Here is one example of the “path” taken by plastics: when the Stockholm University study measured the level of chemicals found in women in the Faroe Islands, a remote location far from industrial or chemical pollution, they found unusually high concentrations of toxic industrial chemicals in their breast milk. According to a story published by The Guardian, “The chemicals were coming from the ocean or, more specifically, from the pilot whales that make up an important part of the islanders’ diet.”
According to the article, “Inuit living in the Canadian Arctic have also been found to have higher POP levels in their blood than the general population of Canada, predominantly due to their diet of fish and marine mammals such as walrus and narwhal.”
Senate Bill 543 and Senate Bill 545 aim to put an end to this cycle, which, in the end, is killing us. Several legislators and advocates celebrated the passage of the two bills as significant steps forward in reducing plastic pollution:
“Products that have a ‘forever’ impact on our planet, like polystyrene foam, which doesn’t biodegrade, and PFAS forever chemicals that build up in our bodies and environment, should be eliminated,” said Senator Janeen Sollman (SD-15). “As we move away from these wasteful and harmful plastic products, we should make it easier for Oregon businesses to offer reusable options to help make the zero waste future we are working to build a reality. I am thrilled to see both of these bills pass today and look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law.”
“I am dedicated to working to preserve the health of our beautiful state, our wildlife and our people. Plastic pollution is harmful and we cannot recycle our way out of this significant problem,” said Representative Maxine Dexter (HD-33). “Today, with the passage of SB 543 and SB 545, we took critical steps toward prioritizing the health and beauty of Oregon above convenience by phasing out the availability of wasteful and toxic single-use plastics.”
“Nothing we use for just a few minutes should pollute the environment for hundreds of years,” said Celeste Meiffren-Swango, Environment Oregon’s state director. “The two bills passed by the Oregon legislature today will help Oregon eliminate toxic and wasteful products, shift away from our throwaway culture and build a future where we produce less waste. Thanks to the Oregon legislature for passing these bills. We look forward to seeing them signed into law.”
“It’s time to take out the single-use takeout! Senate Bill 543 and 545 aim to help Oregon improve on a one-way, throwaway food service economy. Businesses spend $24 billion a year on disposable food service items. As one of the top items we find on Oregon’s beaches and throughout the environment, millions more each year is spent cleaning this stuff up,” said Charlie Plybon, Oregon Policy Manager with Surfrider Foundation.
“With SB 543 Oregon has the chance to become the 10th state in the nation to ban foam foodware, one of the most commonly found single-use plastics polluting beaches worldwide according to Ocean Conservancy data,” said Dr. Anja Brandon, Associate Director of U.S. Plastics Policy at Ocean Conservancy. “Meanwhile, SB 545 will help ensure that as Oregon moves away from toxic single-use plastics like foam we have better access to sustainable and reusable alternatives. These bills are complementary and crucial to tackling the plastic pollution crisis, and we look forward to Governor Kotek signing them into law. Let’s hope that legislatures around the country and in Washington, D.C., are paying attention.”
“In recent years, our staff have knocked on tens of thousands of doors in Oregon about the need to move beyond polystyrene foam and the overwhelming response was ‘It’s about time!’,” said Charlie Fisher, state director with OSPIRG. “These bills move Oregon further towards a world where we reduce and reuse instead of use once and throwaway, and we’re happy to see them headed to the Governor’s desk.”
“Not only is styrene toxic for human and environmental health, but so is PFAS in foodware,” said Jamie Pang, Environmental Health Program Director at the Oregon Environmental Council. “PFAS has been found in the blood of nearly every American, including newborn babies. Phasing out PFAS in foodware is a common sense way to eliminate a significant source of exposure to cancer-causing and endocrine disrupting chemicals that pollute our bodies and waterways.”
We often overlook the little things when quantifying our carbon footprints. These are the small, everyday conveniences that can have a significant effect on the environment but are easy to forget about. One of these things is the disposable cup sleeve you get with your morning cup of coffee.
While these sleeves may seem insignificant, their impact on the environment quickly adds up. In the US alone, more than 50 billion coffee cups are thrown away annually; many of which are likely accompanied by a disposable sleeve.
Most cup sleeves are made of non-recyclable materials, such as paper coated with plastic or foam, and they often end up in landfills where they can take hundreds of years to decompose. Additionally, the production and transportation of these sleeves require non-renewable energy and resources.
In this article, we’ll recommend 4 reusable cup sleeves perfect for your morning coffee and other hot or cold beverages. All of these recommendations are hand-made by small businesses, so you can support the planet while supporting the little guys!
Continue reading to learn how we chose our recommendations or skip straight to our top picks.
We reviewed many different reusable cup sleeve brands to find the very best sleeves for your drinks. Here are the criteria we used to determine what makes a high-quality, sustainable cup sleeve:
The materials used in the cup sleeves we recommend are environmentally friendly and have a minimal negative impact on the planet. We searched for products that use materials that don’t contain toxic chemicals such as BPA, BPS, and phthalates. We also opted for products made from sustainable, natural materials that will hold up well with time and consistent use.
Some of these materials include
Reusable products must be able to actually be reused time and again. That’s why we researched our recommendations thoroughly to find the ones that are built to last. Some key aspects of a well-built reusable cup sleeve include quality stitching, heat resistance, and ease of cleaning. We’re confident all of the products we recommend can take a beating and stand the test of time without issues.
We searched for companies that promote ethical and sustainable business practices, with social and environmental responsibility being taken seriously throughout the supply chain. All of our recommendations are from small businesses with ethical labor practices, and we looked for brands that use eco-friendly packaging and are transparent about their production process.
By selecting sustainable and ethical brands, we can support businesses that prioritize sustainability and social responsibility while enjoying our favorite beverages guilt-free.
Reusable Cup Sleeves
Top Picks
Source: ButtonsandYarnOHMY on Etsy
ButtonsandYarnOHMY is a sustainable and eco-friendly Etsy seller that prioritizes using natural, organic, and ethically-sourced materials in their products. The seller believes in reducing waste and minimizing their environmental impact by repurposing materials and using recycled packaging materials for shipping. “Finding yarn second hand and turning it into something that can be used every day is something I love,” says Michaela Fisk, the owner of the shop.
This reusable cup sleeve, along with everything else they offer, is handmade and ethically sourced. This seller uses recycled yarn for their products whenever possible and they use recycled soft acrylics in their blends. They also use recycled plastics from other Etsy shops for shipping but plan to move to even more sustainable resources for their packaging in the near future.
This sleeve keeps our hands protected from the heat or cold of our beverage. We noticed that it was very carefully crocheted and the stitch held up perfectly during our use.
Pros:
Cons:
Source: Etsy review by Nicole Blystone
For all of the hip folks out there who love to enjoy their beverages from a mason jar, this one is for you. The material used for this sleeve is all-natural, cruelty-free wool that keeps your drink insulated and your hand cozy.
We found that this sleeve is great at keeping hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold for as long as it takes to finish them. Wool fibers hold a lot of air, making them a perfect natural insulator. Furthermore, wool can retain up to 50% of its weight in moisture without feeling wet, making this sleeve perfect for drink containers that give off condensation.
It can be expensive for small businesses to commit to sustainable business practices, but ShovelandSpade is still committed to eco-friendliness by continuously decreasing their carbon footprint as they work towards their goal of being a zero-waste company.
Pros:
Cons:
Source: Etsy review by Emily Gregory
This cup sleeve by VISParadiseGoods is made of canvas, which has numerous environmental benefits over plastics and other synthetic materials. For one, canvas is very durable and can last for years with sustained use.
Since it’s made from natural fibers like cotton or hemp, it’s also biodegradable, unlike other plastic-based materials, and will break down into natural materials relatively quickly at the end of its useful life. VISParadiseGoods also uses eco-friendly packaging made out of biodegradable materials.
One thing we love about this cup sleeve is the strap attached to it. We’ve all been in this situation: you’re walking up to a door with your hands full, with a coffee in one hand, and you need to put something down in order to get inside the building. The strap on this sleeve helps address that inconvenience. By looping the strap around your wrist, you can free up one of your hands to open the door or grab your keys.
Pros:
Cons:
Source: Etsy review by Arianna Rose Levesque
MicheNiche’s reusable cup sleeve is made of upcycled cotton, meaning they use leftover fabrics from other products that they sell. The process of upcycling is great for the environment as it reduces waste and carbon emissions and promotes a circular economy.
Upcycling also helps keep costs down. At just $6.00, this sleeve is the most affordable recommendation on this list and it works perfectly for both hot and cold beverages. However, we found that it doesn’t work well on non-tapered cups, so you should only get this product if you don’t plan on using it for cylindrical containers.
Pros:
Cons:
Here are our top picks broken down by a few categories:
The Wooly Jar Sleeve is by far the most durable of the reusable cup sleeves we tested. Its water resistance, unbeatable insulation, and resilience make it our top pick for a long-lasting cup sleeve that can take a beating and be reused for years. However, you’ll have to pay a premium for that kind of build quality.
Made from upcycled cotton, MicheNiche’s reusable cup sleeve is the closest product to zero-waste out of all the recommendations on our list.
The reusable cup sleeve by VISParadiseGoods strikes the perfect balance between sustainability, durability, and affordability. Made with biodegradable canvas, this sleeve is eco-friendly and will hold up well over time. On top of all of that, the strap offers a layer of versatility that no other product we reviewed has.
Juan López had just returned home from his job supervising the cleaning of giant tanks that hold toxic chemicals produced along the Houston Ship Channel, one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world.
He was ready to sit down to dinner with his wife, Pamela López, and their four school-age children at their small house across the highway from the plants.
But as the family gathered, the facilities were still burning off chemical emissions, sending clouds of leftover toxics toward their two-bedroom home, hitting them on some days with distinct and worrisome smells — and leaving Mr. López concerned about the health of their children.
“I make good money where I’m at,” he said. “But I always felt like it was only me that was getting exposed, because I am working in the tanks with the chemicals. When the smell comes, all we can really do is try to keep everyone inside. Is that enough? I just don’t know.”
He has reason to worry. Two recent assessments, by the Environmental Protection Agency and city officials in Houston, found that residents were at higher risk of developing leukemia and other cancers than people who lived farther from the chemical plants.
These same worries afflict households in Illinois, Louisiana, West Virginia and other spots around the United States where families live near manufacturing facilities that make or use these cancer-causing chemicals.
“Sacrifice zones — that’s what we call them,” said Ana Parras, a founder of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, which sued the E.P.A. starting in 2020 to push for tighter rules on toxics. “These areas here are paying the price for the rest of the nation, really.”
After years of only intermittent action by the federal government and opposition from the industry, the Biden administration is racing to impose restrictions on certain toxic air releases of the sort that plague Deer Park, while also moving to ban or restrict some of the most hazardous chemicals entirely.
The proposed measures would significantly cut releases of a number of cancer-causing chemicals from plants in Texas, including four of those across the highway from the López family.
Companies from a variety of industries, including those that produce the substances and those that use them, are pressuring the administration to water down some of the rules, saying the repercussions of a ban or new restrictions could be economically crippling.
Few communities are at greater risk than Deer Park, and few people experience the trade-offs between economic considerations and health more than Mr. López, for whom the petrochemical industry is both the source of his family income and a threat to their health.
Mr. López, 33, did not graduate from high school and is proud of how much he is paid to supervise the cleaning of the chemical tanks, which his crew climbs into and scrubs from the inside, an extremely dangerous job.
But he suggested that the job did not blind him to the risks the plants pose to his family, saying that “just because you help me make a paycheck does not mean you are doing everything right.”
Waves of toxic chemicals drift toward the family home at unpredictable moments, day and night. Mr. López wears protective gear at work. But there are no such measures at the house, where the children ride bikes in the driveway and play with a puppy named Dharma. From the swing set in their backyard, they can see the flares from the nearby plants.
More than two dozen plants in the Houston area emit hazardous air pollutants. Heights of red symbols represent the estimated amount of hazardous emissions each year.
#g-houston-box,
#g-houston-box .g-artboard {
margin: 0 auto;
}
#g-houston-box p {
margin: 0;
}
#g-houston-box .g-aiAbs {
position: absolute;
}
#g-houston-box .g-aiImg {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
display: block;
width: 100% !important;
}
#g-houston-box .g-aiSymbol {
position: absolute;
box-sizing: border-box;
}
#g-houston-box .g-aiPointText p {
white-space: nowrap;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 {
position: relative;
overflow: hidden;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 p {
font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: 500;
line-height: 15px;
height: auto;
opacity: 1;
letter-spacing: 0em;
font-size: 14px;
text-align: left;
color: rgb(88, 89, 91);
top: 1.1px;
position: static;
text-transform: none;
padding-bottom: 0;
padding-top: 0;
mix-blend-mode: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle0 {
height: 15px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle1 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 14px;
height: 14px;
font-size: 13px;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
top: 1px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle2 {
font-weight: 700;
height: 15px;
text-align: right;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle3 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 14px;
height: 14px;
font-size: 13px;
text-align: center;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
top: 1px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle4 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 14px;
height: 14px;
font-size: 13px;
text-align: right;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
top: 1px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle5 {
line-height: 13px;
height: 13px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
font-size: 12px;
text-align: center;
color: rgb(128, 130, 133);
top: 1px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_1 .g-pstyle6 {
line-height: 13px;
height: 13px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
font-size: 12px;
text-align: right;
color: rgb(128, 130, 133);
top: 1px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 {
position: relative;
overflow: hidden;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 p {
font-family: nyt-franklin, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;
font-weight: 500;
line-height: 15px;
height: auto;
opacity: 1;
letter-spacing: 0em;
font-size: 16px;
text-align: left;
color: rgb(88, 89, 91);
top: 1.3px;
position: static;
text-transform: none;
padding-bottom: 0;
padding-top: 0;
mix-blend-mode: normal;
font-style: normal;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle0 {
height: 15px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle1 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 17px;
height: 17px;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle2 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 17px;
height: 17px;
text-align: right;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle3 {
font-weight: 700;
line-height: 17px;
height: 17px;
text-align: center;
color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle4 {
line-height: 16px;
height: 16px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
font-size: 15px;
text-align: center;
color: rgb(128, 130, 133);
top: 1.2px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle5 {
line-height: 16px;
height: 16px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
font-size: 15px;
color: rgb(128, 130, 133);
top: 1.2px;
position: relative;
}
#g-houston-Artboard_2 .g-pstyle6 {
line-height: 16px;
height: 16px;
letter-spacing: 0.05em;
font-size: 15px;
text-align: right;
color: rgb(128, 130, 133);
top: 1.2px;
position: relative;
}
Plant locations
Residential area
173
187 tons
per year
570
239
Houston
189
Baytown
100
Deer
Park
Pasadena
Bayport
Plant locations
Residential area
173
187 tons
per year
570
239
Houston
189
Baytown
100
Deer
Park
Pasadena
95
Bayport
Sources: Environmental Protection Agency; United States Census Bureau
By Monica Hersher
Texas records examined by The New York Times show that toxic releases are happening regularly in the area, sometimes even without notifications to residents.
That includes carcinogens spewed from the OxyVinyls plastics manufacturing plant across the highway when air pollution control equipment temporarily went down before dawn in mid-July, state records show. The discharge included three known or suspected carcinogens that the E.P.A. is cracking down on.
When a tornado touched down in the neighborhood in January, the power went out, disrupting pollution control equipment in at least seven refineries and chemical plants in the area and resulting in the discharge of known toxins that were visible in the form of black clouds of smoke.
Mixed in with these discharges, state records show, were an estimated 32,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant that can cause respiratory ailments, as well as smaller amounts of 1,3-butadiene and benzine, known carcinogens.
On a Sunday morning in February, a pressure relief valve opened at another OxyVinyls plant, discharging vinyl chloride into the air. That chemical was released after a huge train derailment near East Palestine, Ohio, that month; it was manufactured at the OxyVinyls plant near where the López family lives, rail records show.
In March, an “emission event” at OxyVinyls over five hours on a Wednesday evening released nearly 15,000 pounds of hydrogen chloride, a gas that can irritate the eyes and throat, among more serious ailments.
Other records obtained by The Times show that nearby plants have released into the air over the past two years other chemicals — a kind of who’s who list of the most toxic chemicals in use in the United States — the same substances the Biden administration is preparing to impose new restrictions on.
An analysis prepared by the advocacy group Earthjustice based on federal records shows more than one million pounds of these so-called high-priority chemicals, including the carcinogens 1,3-butadiene and formaldehyde, have been released over the past decade in the Deer Park neighborhood.
“Not enough people have enough information,” Mr. López said as he arrived home from work, his children circling around on roller skates and a Spiderman ride-on car. “And they don’t know what they’re being exposed to.”
The regular discharges of toxics have left Mr. and Ms. López wondering if the headaches their oldest daughter, Mahliyah Angelie, has experienced (her teacher called recently to report the persistent problem) might be related to the chemicals.
“Should I take another Tylenol?” Mahliyah, 9, asked her mother. She picked up the nearly empty, family-size bottle on the kitchen counter, and her mother nodded nervously.
One goal of the policies the E.P.A. has recently issued or proposed is to remove a loophole that allows toxic chemical discharges during bad storms, plant malfunctions or when they start up or shut down. The agency will separately require, for the first time, that many of these chemical plants monitor air at their fence lines for six key toxics to ensure they are complying with the rules.
“Communities don’t stop breathing during a hurricane,” Michael S. Regan, the E.P.A. administrator, said last month, standing in front of a plastics plant in St. John the Baptist Parish, in Louisiana, as he announced some of the proposed rules.
In the Houston area, many neighbors of the López family in Deer Park work at the plants or have relatives who do. They say they appreciate all that the corporations have done for the community, such as donating money to expand playgrounds and supporting local schools.
Candace Dray, 43, has lived in the Deer Park area all her life. She remembers growing up when her father used to play football outside with the neighbors, the night sky lit up by flares from the plants. Her son Joshua Howard Jr., 6, still plays in the front yard, jumping into mud puddles with his boots on, as the flares burn on the other side of the highway.
“I’ve got the V.I.P. seats, absolutely,” Ms. Dray joked, looking across from her house at the endless line of plants that turn crude oil into gasoline and produce chemicals needed to manufacture plastics and sanitize drinking water. “But these plants have to be somewhere. Somebody has got to do the work. You have to have these products.”
But the threats are at times overwhelming. A fire in March 2019 spread to almost a dozen chemical tanks, forming a plume of smoke that lingered over the area for three days and prompting a formal shelter-in-place warning from the local authorities. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of hazardous waste spilled on the ground and leaked into the water.
A recent study by the E.P.A., the first of its kind by the agency, concluded that about 100,000 people who live within six miles of chemical plants it is cracking down on — mostly in Texas and Louisiana — have an elevated risk of cancer.
In Houston, a separate study found elevated levels of formaldehyde, which is formed as different toxic chemicals from many sources mix in the air. The highest concentrations were picked up at an air monitor north of where the López family lives. People living nearby face an increased risk of developing cancer if the levels persist, according to the Houston Health Department.
Another study by the city’s health department and the University of Texas School of Public Health said data on actual cases of childhood lymphoma showed a “56 percent increased risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia among children living within two miles” of the Houston Ship Channel, compared with those who were at least 10 miles away.
The research, starting more than a decade ago, shows that those at greatest risk are typically Black and Latino residents of Houston in lower-income neighborhoods like Galena Park, just east of the Lópezes.
The chemical industry has funded its own health survey, including one asserting that there are no elevated levels of cancer in Deer Park. “Cancer is common and complicated,” said a presentation in 2021 by an industry-funded group in Deer Park, adding that “one in three people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime” regardless of nearby chemical plants and that obesity is a major factor in many types of cancer.
The E.P.A.’s estimates of cancer risk, a separate letter from the American Chemistry Council says, rely on “a number of scientific, statistical and technical errors” that most likely exaggerate the health threat. A spokeswoman for the chemistry council added that since the 1980s, total toxic chemical releases have dropped in the United States, even as the population has grown.
In interviews, chemical plant managers and corporate executives stressed the importance of the industry to the United States and said they were confident they were doing a responsible job of protecting the public. The flares, for example, which light up the sky with an ominous glare, are intended to efficiently burn off toxins at high temperatures as they are vented, they said.
“We don’t make money when we buy a raw material and then you leak it into the atmosphere or you burn it at the end of a flare,” said Peter R. Huntsman, the chief executive of Huntsman, one of the world’s largest chemical companies. It has a plant in Houston as well as one north of the city, near the headquarters.
But E.P.A. documents show these flares often fail to completely burn off toxins, meaning chemical residues are sent drifting toward homes, trends that have been meticulously documented by an extensive network of air monitors set up in the Houston area.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s lead regulator, rarely issues fines to companies for the episodes. Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, sued the Biden administration this year when it moved to try to force Texas to tighten its air pollution enforcement efforts, saying that the rules “do immeasurable harm to our state sovereignty and to numerous industries across Texas.”
The Times asked executives at five Houston-area petrochemical plants — run by Exxon Mobil, OxyChem, LyondellBasell, Olin Corporation and Westlake — for permission to visit to learn more about efforts to curb releases of toxic chemicals. Each of the companies declined.
After The Times reached out to the American Chemistry Council to ask for further access, Huntsman allowed a reporter and a photographer to visit the company’s headquarters in suburban Houston, as well as a chemical plant in Conroe, about an hour north of Houston, in a wooded area far from homes.
Brittany Benko, the company’s senior vice president for environmental safety, walked through Huntsman’s health and safety practices, including required respirators and other equipment for certain employees, as well as medical monitoring for those who work particularly close to toxic chemicals.
“We want to protect our workers, and we want to protect the public,” Ms. Benko said in a statement, echoing comments that an OxyChem executive made to The Times.
Mr. Huntsman said that if air monitoring in Houston had documented elevated levels of certain toxics like formaldehyde, then the plants must work to identify the source and curb emissions that were contributing to the problem.
“We ought to be digging into the source of it,” he said from his office on the ninth floor of the company’s headquarters in The Woodlands, Texas, miles from any major chemical plants. “It should not be something that any industry should brush off.”
Three days after the visit by a Times reporter, the Huntsman plant in Conroe had an unexpected “emissions event” that released more than 11,000 pounds of hazardous chemicals, state records show, including a small amount of propylene oxide, a “probable human carcinogen” used to make polyurethane foams. In its report to the state, the company said it was confident that no one was harmed.
Advice on healthy candles, purging kitchen plastic and the art of dyeing fabric naturally.
This article is part of our Design special section about making the environment a creative partner in the design of beautiful homes.
I’ve heard some candles can create indoor air pollution and even be harmful. Are there safer alternatives?
Paraffin, the wax from which many candles are made, is derived from petroleum. When it burns, it emits toxic fumes. These irritate some people’s eyes and can also exacerbate asthma and other respiratory conditions. Synthetic fragrances and colors can also produce irritating fumes. On top of that, some wicks contain lead (to make them firmer), which is released into the air.
Alternatives include beeswax as well as waxes made from soy, coconut, rapeseed and other oils. Some vegans do not support the use of beeswax because it is an animal product, and some feel the beekeeping industry is not cruelty free. Soy wax is certainly more sustainable than petroleum, but its possible negatives include the use of pesticides. (Look for organic soy wax.) The other vegetable waxes mentioned are relatively clean.
Be sure to read the fine print. I was recently lured in by a candle from a well-known brand that was “formulated with vegan-friendly ingredients” only to find it also contained paraffin. So make sure you’re getting 100 percent of whatever alternative wax you seek. Also, check to see if artificial scents or other chemicals have been added. (Choose candles scented with nothing but essential oils.) Look for wicks that are made from cotton, wood or hemp — and glass containers that can be recycled or reused.
Organic Savanna candles, poured in Kenya, are handmade from organic soy wax and locally sourced ingredients. One hundred percent of profits from the sale of the candles helps create jobs for Kenyan women and fund children’s education. Les Crème candles have pure organic coconut wax and cotton wicks. Hive to Home candles incorporate locally sourced beeswax, organic coconut oil, cotton wicks and sustainable packaging. Rapeseed wax candles are harder to find, especially in the United States. But plenty of places sell the wax itself if you’re a candle maker.
My kitchen feels like a toxic waste dump filled with plastic bags and storage containers, plastic wrap and more. Are there better choices?
Indeed there are. Plastic containers have gotten a lot of negative press, especially those that contain Bisphenol A, or BPA, which has been discovered to be an endocrine disrupter linked to all kinds of potential health issues and is banned in many states. Now we are swimming in BPA-free plastics. Unfortunately, these can contain Bisphenol S (BPS), which is chemically similar.
An alternative is glass or metal storage containers with silicone lids. (Silicone isn’t perfect because many communities don’t recycle it, but it is primarily made from a naturally derived material, silica, and lasts much longer than plastic.) Brands include Ikea, Pyrex, and Public Goods.
You can also reuse screw-top glass jars. (If the original housed something aromatic like garlicky dill pickles, you’ll want to run the lid through the dishwasher first.)
Plastic wrap and even some wax paper also contain materials derived from petroleum. Also, they are (generally) one-time-use products, so they keep your bowl of guacamole fresh for a day before off to the landfill they go.
But there are plastic-free wraps, typically cotton fabric coated with some sort of wax, that can be used repeatedly to cover a jar or bowl, or wrap a piece of cut fruit or a wedge of cheese. They don’t last forever but they are typically compostable (or can be used as fire starters). I find they sometimes pick up odors, but a thorough wash in cool water and mild soap, followed by a thorough air dry freshens them. Bee’s Wrap has two versions — one coated in beeswax, the other in a vegan-friendly soy-coconut wax blend.
Another clever product is Food Huggers, which are a set of five sizes of colorful, stretchy discs made from food-grade silicone. They are dishwasher, freezer, and microwave safe. You can use them as jar lids or slide them over the cut end of a lemon, onion, apple or other produce. The company also makes silicone “Hugger Bags” that take the place of plastic food storage bags.
I’m interested in trying natural fabric dyeing but am afraid it’s really complicated. Where can I find out more?
Making dye from plants and animals goes back to ancient times and has been done by nearly all cultures. Today there is a community of dyers you can tap into for information, ideas and supplies.
I’ve long been a fan of indigo, a plant in the bean family whose leaves — when soaked and fermented — produce a beautiful deep-blue dye. Other colors can be produced using flowers, roots, berries, fruit and vegetable peels, wood, and even insects.
The Bible mentions a particular blue dye color, called tekhelet, whose exact formulation has been lost but is thought to have come from a secretion of sea snails.
But you’re right. It’s often more complicated than simply boiling some flower petals and dunking in a piece of fabric — especially if you want the dye to be durable and stay uniform over time.
Botanical Colors, based in Seattle, offers education and natural dyeing materials. They support farmers and organic and regenerative farming, organizing workshops locally and sometimes in other parts of the country, on topics including dyeing with mud, indigo, persimmon tannins and more. They also have a biweekly online show called Feedback Friday, which began during the pandemic. The group’s president, Kathy Hattori, and sustainability and communications director, Amy DuFault, speak with artists, writers and scholars about natural dyeing and color.
Maiwa, based in Vancouver, sells a large range of materials for the natural dyer as well as downloadable instructions (“How to Dye With Indigo,” for instance), books, and fabrics. They promote “Slow Clothes,” or the contributions of hand spinners, hand weavers and natural dyers as an antidote to mass production. They also offer classes, many of them free, through their School of Textiles.
Readers are invited to send questions to designadvice@nytimes.com.
Growing up in Long Beach California, Captain Charles Moore quickly developed a love for the ocean.
Moore’s father was a chemist and sailor who frequently took him and his siblings out on the Pacific. Moore fondly recalls their long conversations about science while they stared out into the water.
“When you get out there and jump in and just see that deep blue going on forever,” he says. “The biggest kind of surprise that you can get as a human being, in terms of knowing the planet that you occupy.”
So it was fate as much as luck that, decades later, it was Moore who discovered the largest-ever accumulation of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean — what’s commonly known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.”
In 1997, Moore was on a sailing trip from Honolulu to Santa Barbara when hurricane winds blew him way off course. He started noticing objects bobbing in the water, like coming across a plastic soup.
Moore started to play a game: Every 10 minutes, he’d come up to the deck to see if he could get a clear view of the ocean without any trash. Unfortunately, he never won.
“So I said, you know what, this has got to be more than just Hansel and Gretel leaving a trail of crumbs just for me to follow home. This is not what it is,” Moore recalls. “This is gotta be a bigger phenomenon.”
Eric Risberg
/
Associated Press
What Moore discovered was the first of five large floating plastic debris zones in our oceans. The largest one is estimated to be a 620,000 square mile circle of trash, and all of the zones are increasing in magnitude every day.
Moore went on to found the Algalita Marine Research and Education organization in 1999, and he’s stayed at the forefront of what he calls the “Great Plastics Awakening,” to make people aware of this growing problem.
According to marine biologist and ocean activist Danni Washington (who calls Captain Moore the O.G. of ocean advocacy), an estimated 4-12 million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean every year. That’s enough plastic to cover every foot of coastline on the planet.
Despite that, Washington says, “it’s not about doom and gloom.”
“It’s not just about projecting this idea that we’re screwed. We have to design the future that we hope for, where we see equitable and regenerative solutions being brought to the forefront.”
On the KCUR Studios podcast Seeking A Scientist, host Dr. Kate Biberdorf (aka Kate The Chemist) spoke to Moore about his research and what it means for marine life. And Washington shared the latest innovations and efforts to fix the damage that humans are causing to our oceans.
The average American generates almost five pounds of trash every day. That’s 292 million tons of trash per year.
And in the United States, we only recycle about 35% of that trash. The EPA estimates that we could be recycling up to 75%, but a lot of this waste still ends up in trash bins. And a lot of that waste is plastic.
It takes a long time for plastics to biodegrade — anywhere from 20 years to 500, depending on the type of plastic and how much sunlight it gets.
Algalita Marine Research and Education
Because the ocean is downstream from everything, a lot of the plastic waste that we throw out ends up there. Common plastics found in the ocean include polypropylene (from bottle caps and plastic straws), polyethylene (used to make our take-away containers and shampoo bottles), and nylon (often found in plastic toothbrushes and fishing nets).
But it’s not just large plastic objects that we need to worry about. Over time, UV rays from the sun can weaken plastic, causing “photodegradation” to occur. When this happens, the plastic breaks into smaller chunks, sort of like what happens when you drop a champagne flute: the larger glass breaks down into smaller pieces.
Now imagine picking up each of those tiny pieces, and shattering them again. This process repeats on end, until we end up with micro-plastics and nano-plastics in the ocean.
And it’s still uncertain if these smaller pieces of plastic ever fully break down. This process is problematic for tiny marine life that can mistake the plastic for food.
It’s proven especially destructive to plankton — a crucial source of food for larger marine life, as well as the source for nearly half the planet’s oxygen.
All these big and small chunks of plastic come together in places called gyres, which are vortexes in the ocean caused by currents.
Algalita Marine Research and Education
“These circulating bodies of water act as accumulators for things that are floating on the surface,” Moore explains. “So those circulating bodies of water happen to comprise 40% of the world ocean.”
Moore has a particular fondness for the North Pacific Gyre, the one responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
He’s returned to the patch several times over the last two decades, often taking crews of researchers with him, and has been shocked by the rapid increase in plastic he’s seen.
It’s so bad, Moore says, that in 2021, the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch outweighed the plankton there by a factor of six to one.
Every year, it is estimated that 100,000 mammals and 1 million seabirds are killed by plastic in our oceans. Dolphins get tangled in nets and can’t come up to the surface to breathe. Albatross eat plastic bottle caps, while whales and sea turtles consume disposable packaging and plastic bags.
To truly understand the severity of the situation, Moore wants people to experience these garbage patches firsthand.
“It can be so calm out there that you can just take a piece of plywood and four inner tubes and pitch a tent on it and just hang out there,” Moore says. “I think adventure tourism has a place out in the garbage patch to really see how this thing is. But part of that is the trip to get there and learning how big the ocean is and how we’ve been able to pollute something that big.”
Twenty years after Moore’s initial discovery of the garbage patch, he stumbled upon something much worse: a trash island.
In the documentary “Sailing the Ocean of Trash with Captain Moore,” there’s footage of Moore walking on Hi-Zex Island, a floating trash mound within the North Pacific Gyre made of bound-up rope, buoys, and an accumulation of garbage.
Algalita Marine Research and Education
“I felt like Captain Cook mapping a new island, you know, out in the middle of the ocean,” Moore says.
One of the odd things that scientists have found is that, while the garbage has proved destructive to ocean environments, some species have found ways to thrive within this plastic world.
Below the surface, Moore’s crews observed a tremendous amount of fish — pelagics like mahi mahi, dolphins and rudderfish, all feeding on other species that had gathered.
Just recently, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center documented 484 different species hanging out on the marine debris, the majority of which are usually found on the coast.
“It’s not entirely clear 100%, but I will tell you that a big player in the potential success of a species to adapt to environmental changes is how diverse is their genome in their population,” says Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado, executive director for the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. (Disclosure: the Stowers Institute financially supports KCUR’s podcast Seeking A Scientist.)
Sánchez Alvarado says that genome diversity is a lot like the makeup of your hand in a game of cards. If you have all aces, and you’re playing a game where aces can’t be played, then you’re out of luck (i.e. the species becomes extinct). But if you have a range of cards, your chances of being able to make a move are way better – these species survive.
Sánchez Alvarado says this genetic diversity helps species adapt more willingly to new situations. The ones who don’t, likely die off and disappear forever.
One example of a species that seems well suited for environments polluted by humans are killifish — which are sort of like the celebrity fish of toxic waters.
Algalita Marine Research and Education
There are over 1,200 different types of killifish, and different variations have found novel ways to adapt to their specific environments. The Atlantic killifish on the eastern coast of the United States has been exposed to bad industrial pollution, but seem to be thriving nonetheless.
Meanwhile, killifish have been found living in a sulfur-rich spring in Mexico, despite extremely low concentrations of oxygen. Another killifish group was sent to space and learned how to swim under weightless conditions. And when their sibling eggs hatched, they too could swim without gravity.
For comparison, when goldfish were sent to space, they started to swim in a looping pattern and appeared to be miserable.
“That’s what genetic diversity is all about,” says Sánchez Alvarado. “It’s exciting to see, you know, how species are adapting… But at the same time, I know that comes at a cost and that there are gonna be some things that we don’t understand might disappear before we understand them. And therefore, there may be a sense of loss, at the end of the day.”
What’s clear is that the worsening pollution in the ocean will end up with winners and losers — which will have lasting consequences far beyond the water. Danni Washington says that to tackle this growing problem, plastic consumers, producers, and scientists all need to step up.
“It’s just a matter of collective vision. It’s about innovation, it’s about creativity,” Washington says. “Bringing all these different ideas and minds and backgrounds and experiences to the table so that we can come up with the best solution possible.”
“We have a lot of work to get there,” she adds.
Algalita Marine Research and Education
At this point, a complete ocean clean-up of all the micro-plastics and nano-plastics would be nearly impossible.“If you tried to clean up less than 1% of the North Pacific Ocean, it would take 67 ships one year to clean up that portion,” says Diana Parker, who works on the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program.
“And the bottom line is that until we prevent debris from entering the ocean at the source, it’s just going to keep congregating in these areas. We could go out and clean it all up and then still have the same problem on our hands as long as there’s debris entering the ocean,” she says.
But Washington says there are still a lot of things we can do to mitigate the situation.
“When it comes to plastic pollution entering the ocean, 80% of it is coming from land-based sources,” says Washington. “So that means that we have an opportunity to intercept those pieces of plastic before they enter the water.”
On top of local and individual efforts, a few non-profit organizations are stepping onto the scene. The Ocean Cleanup has gained some notoriety on social media by building high tech “interceptors,” which are positioned at the mouths of polluted rivers and harbors and funnel floating trash onto a conveyor belt.
The Ocean Cleanup reports that 80% of the plastic that enters the ocean comes from 1% of the rivers on Earth. As of today, their interceptors have removed about 5 million pounds of trash from waterways.
Another, more adorable solution is Mr. Trash Wheel, which is especially effective after big storms. With 5-foot googly eyes and powered by hydro- and solar energy, the semi-autonomous interceptor hangs out in harbors and collects trash — it can gobble up to 38,000 pounds in a day.
Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore
/
Associated Press
Washington’s favorite is The Great Bubble Barrier, which was designed by a Dutch startup company. It uses air to create a bubble curtain that prevents plastic from moving beyond a point, pushing trash (but not marine life) into a catchment system.
Outside of the ocean, there are exciting innovations coming from scientists who are working to make plastics that are more biodegradable.
Like research out of the University of Sydney, which recently discovered two fungi that can break down a type of plastic in about four and a half months. There’s also been some success with a corn-bioplastic that can break down in two-three months.
Another promising result involves using an invasive brown seaweed to create a biodegradable replacement for plastic wrap.
But Washington also knows that to protect the ocean, humans need to keep plastic out of the water in the first place.
To that end, Washington is working towards a “Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights” that is being presented to the United Nations General Assembly in September.
“I think it’s so important that no matter what walk of life you’re on, no matter what you do, you can get involved,” she says. “The ocean is our life source and it requires everyone to contribute.”
Listen and subscribe to Seeking A Scientist with Kate The Chemist, from KCUR Studios, available wherever you listen to podcasts.
Seeking A Scientist is a production of KCUR Studios, made possible with support from the Stowers Institute for Medical Research and design help from PRX.
This episode was produced by Dr. Kate Biberdorf, Suzanne Hogan and Byron Love, edited by Mackenzie Martin and Gabe Rosenberg, with help from Genevieve Des Marteau.
Our original theme music is by The Coma Calling. Additional music from Blue Dot Sessions.
As the world becomes increasingly conscious of the environmental impact of plastic, many consumers are seeking alternatives to traditional plastic bottles. Biodegradable plastics, made from plant-based materials, offer a promising solution to this issue. These plastics break down in a shorter period of time with the help of industrial composting facilities, reducing their impact on the environment.
However, finding top-quality biodegradable plastic bottles can be a challenge. In this blog post, we will explore where to buy biodegradable plastic bottles and evaluate the best options on the market based on sustainability, safety, quality, and value. Read on to learn more about how we chose the best biodegradable plastic bottles, or jump straight to our top picks.
Many plastic bottle brands on the market today claim to be biodegradable, but the materials used and how they manufacture their products are not completely transparent. This may overwhelm you and lead to you purchasing a less-than-sustainable bottle. To help you find the right ones, we scoured the market to find top brands and evaluated each biodegradable bottle to ensure we only recommend products that meet our standards of the following criteria:
We chose items that are free of toxins and other potentially harmful chemicals like BPA, BPS, and phthalates. We also ensured that the materials used for our recommendations were completely biodegradable and met biodegradability standards. We also chose plastic bottles produced from eco-friendly and biodegradable materials. These materials are used to create products that have the same features as traditional plastic bottles, but have a lower environmental impact. Unlike traditional plastic, these bottles are made with renewable resources and can fully biodegrade without releasing harmful chemicals. Examples of these materials include:
We made sure to only recommend biodegradable plastic bottles that are durable and can meet or exceed the quality of traditional plastic bottles. We thoroughly evaluated each bottle’s volume, durability, and usability, and we carefully reviewed the overall user experience of each bottle on our list.
We researched each brand’s manufacturing process to make sure the products are produced in an ethical and sustainable manner. We also checked for their participation in any programs or projects that benefit the environment or their communities.
Here’s a list of our top recommendations for the best biodegradable plastic bottles.
Biodegradable Plastic Bottles
Top Picks
Source: Tyler/Amazon
Elite Jet’s biodegradable plastic bottle is made of food-grade, toxin-free polyethylene treated with a special bio-additive substance that attracts microorganisms to consume the plastic once discarded, making it completely biodegradable within just 3 months to 5 years depending on the industrial composting facility.
This bottle is made for outdoor activities, and is particularly suited for cycling since it fits perfectly in a bicycle bottle carrier. It features a push-pull nozzle that provides a fast flow with just a few squeezes. We love how light this bottle is, making it easy to carry around and put in your backpack’s side pocket when going hiking, running, or just taking a walk in the park.
Elite Jet’s biodegradable plastic bottle is 100% compostable, so it is important to send it to an industrial composting facility at the end of its life, rather than just throwing it out!
Elite promotes transparency in their company and manufacturing process by releasing their company code of ethics to the public where they explain their ethical principles and practices, as well as their environmental commitments and goals.
Looking for a different color and size? Elite Jet biodegradable plastic bottles are also available in yellow, black, red, and transparent colors that are available in 350ml, 750ml, and 950ml.
Source: SuburbanMom/Amazon
Water-To-Go’s bioplastic water purifier bottle is made of ethically sourced sugarcane. It has a built-in filter that can purify water for up to three months, allowing it to purify up to 200 liters of water. While the Water-To-Go bottle is 100% recyclable, only the filter is 100% biodegradable, so it is important to send this bottle to the recycling and composting facilities after it has reached its end of life.
This water purifier bottle allows you to easily scoop water from lakes or streams and convert it into potable, safe drinking water, which is perfect if you run out of drinking water when hiking, trekking, camping, or going into any outdoor activity. We are astounded by the filter’s ability to remove viruses, germs, parasites, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, and even microplastics without pumping or putting purifying chemicals in the water. Furthermore, this bottle has an ergonomic shape for a firm and comfortable grip.
Water-To-Go is also collaborating with Just a Drop to provide clean water to remote communities all over the world.
Looking for a different color? Water-To-Go bioplastic water purifier bottle is also available in brown, purple, black, blue, red, and green options. You can also get this bottle on Amazon.
Source: Nadya/Amazon
Simpl’s wheat straw fiber water bottle is sturdy and durable, giving you the same quality as hard plastic bottles or tumblers. This bottle, however, can withstand extreme temperatures, making it ideal for your morning coffee or a refreshing afternoon cold drink. We love this biodegradable plastic bottle’s leakproof lid and light weight, making it easy to carry around or toss it in your bag. Additionally, Simpl biodegradable plastic bottle features a bottle leash so you can hook it in your backpack or tote bag for more convenience.
Wheat straw fiber is fully compostable, so make sure to send this bottle to an industrial composting facility when you’re done with it.
Simpl also offers a bamboo fiber biodegradable plastic bottle on Amazon.
Source: Julia C./ S’wheat
S’wheat’s plant-based bottle is made of 100% natural fiber from bamboo and wheat straw. It is extremely durable and can handle both warm and cold drinks. The sliding lock lid is fully leak-proof, so you don’t have to worry about any spillage when you put it inside your bag. This biodegradable plastic bottle also includes a carabiner, allowing you to quickly clip it outside your bag for more convenient use.
S’wheat bottle is 100% compostable, so it can be decomposed in an industrial composting facility.
Additionally, with each purchase of their biodegradable bottle, S’wheat plants a tree, and the growth progress can be tracked. We find this a very nice and unique addition to their sustainability mission.
If you want a different color of this biodegradable plastic bottle, the S’wheat plant-based bottle is also available in blue, black, green, and oat colors.
Source: Twitter/UrthPact
UrthPact offers biodegradable water and juice bottles similar to regular disposable plastic bottles. These bottles are entirely made of plant-based PLA, including the caps, making them 100% compostable in industrial composting facilities. These biodegradable and compostable plastic bottles are as durable as conventional plastic bottles, but are more eco-friendly because they are carbon-neutral. Plant-based PLA is also non-toxic and does not contain any harmful chemicals or additives, making it a safer choice for food and beverage packaging.
Interested in UrthPact biodegradable and compostable bottles? You can inquire using their contact form.
Top Picks
If you’re still unsure about which product to choose, let our top picks help you make a decision.
For only $7.99, the Elite Jet biodegradable plastic bottle is the most affordable of our recommendations.
With Water-To-Go bioplastic water purifier bottle’s ability to convert stream or lake water into safe drinking water by removing viruses, germs, parasites, chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, and microplastics, it is without a doubt the biodegradable bottle with the best feature in our picks.
S’wheat and Water-To-Go are dedicated to expanding their sustainability and ethical efforts beyond just creating biodegradable substitutes for plastic bottles. They are actively involved in initiatives such as reforestation and providing access to clean water in remote communities.
Eco-friendly reusable bags have become a household item in recent years – and for good reason. Reusable bags not only reduce our single-use plastic waste, but they can also make grocery shopping far more convenient.
In this article, we’ve compiled five of the best reusable bags specifically designed for carrying and storing all kinds of produce. These options will make your life easier (and greener!) without breaking the bank. Read on to learn more about how we chose the best reusable bags for produce, or jump straight to our top picks.
We thoroughly evaluated each product to ensure that we are recommending only the best products on the market. To accomplish this, we used specific criteria to determine if the product meets our standards.
We chose reusable produce bags made with sustainable materials such as:
Natural fibers and recycled materials are far more environmentally friendly than virgin and single-use plastic. However, to maximize their sustainability, these items should be used as much as possible. For example, a cotton bag must be used 173 times before it is considered more sustainable than a plastic bag, so we make sure our recommendations are bags that will last.
We only recommend reusable produce bags that are built to last to ensure that they are worth every penny. The more times you are able to use a produce bag before replacing it, the more sustainable it becomes! We ensured that the produce bags on our list are:
We thoroughly investigated each brand to see if their products are manufactured ethically and their materials are sourced sustainably. We also prioritized brands that support environmental and social efforts.
Today’s market has a wide variety of reusable bags for produce of all kinds. We’ve done the research for you, so you can easily pick the best bags for your grocery shopping needs.
Reusable Produce Bags
Top Picks
Source: Mindy Wills/Amazon
Purifyou’s reusable cotton mesh bags are made of 100% organic cotton mesh. They come in a variety of sizes, making them versatile for various uses such as storing and transporting different sizes of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and even toys and laundry. We love these reusable produce bags’ drawstring bead locks, which are perfect for making sure your fruits and veggies don’t accidentally fall out during your market trips. They also include a tare weight tag, a label attached to the bags to indicate their weight when empty. This tag is used to calculate the exact net weight of the contents you put in your produce bags. We find this quite useful when shopping to avoid being charged extra for the weight of the bag.
Rather than arriving wrapped in lots of plastic, these reusable cotton mesh bags come in a sustainable packing box that can be reused to store small items. These bags are also very easy to clean. You can either hand wash them or simply put them in the washing machine. Additionally, Purifyou pledges a portion of its sales to organizations that promote sustainable living around the world.
You can also get these reusable cotton mesh bags on the Purifyou website.
Source: Rob/Amazon
Organic Cotton Mart’s mesh produce bags are made of 100% organic cotton that is ethically sourced from India. These bags have double stitching on all sides, making them extremely durable and compatible with heavy-duty use. They are also sealable with drawstring lock features, which keep your goods safe and intact. The bags’ tare weight tags make it convenient to easily deduct the bag’s weight when shopping at your local farmer’s market.
Because they are entirely made of cotton, these reusable mesh produce bags are also very easy to wash and dry. We absolutely love these bags’ zero-waste packaging, which is made with 100% recycled paper.
You can also get these reusable cotton mesh produce bags on the Organic Cotton Mart website.
Source: Ever Eco
Ever Eco’s reusable produce bags are made from premium lightweight recycled PET bottles (the single-use plastic bottles commonly used for beverages such as water, soda, juice, and sports drinks). This bag not only works to reduce the usage of single-use plastic bags, but it also helps reduce the amount of existing plastic waste that ends up in landfills and the ocean.
Each of these reusable produce bags is spacious enough to carry up to 16 oranges while being exceptionally lightweight (less than 2 grams). They are also sealable with a drawstring for extra security. Every set includes a storage pouch with a carabiner clip that lets you fold and store your Ever Eco produce bags and fasten them to your bag or belt – we found this to be helpful for grocery trips on the go.
These produce bags are easier to wash than reusable cotton produce bags since polyester doesn’t absorb stains as easily as cotton fabric. Furthermore, the mesh of Ever Eco reusable produce bags is fine enough to hold grains and small beans.
Source: Aaron S./Amazon
Simple Ecology muslin reusable produce bags are constructed of 100% organic cotton that has been certified by the Global Organic Textile Standards (GOTS) for following best practices for ecology and social responsibility. These reusable bags, unlike our other recommendations, are made of cotton muslin cloth rather than mesh fabric, making them more durable and designed for heavy-duty use. As a result, these bags can hold a wider variety of produce, from fine grains and small beans to fresh fruits and large vegetables. They are also secured with a drawstring lock and sewn with an exterior tare weight tag.
Not only do Simple Ecology’s muslin reusable produce bags use sustainably sourced materials, but their packaging is also eco-friendly. The bags come in a Kraft paper clasp envelope, which is made from wood pulp that can be sustainably harvested and replanted. Additionally, the packaging includes ethically harvested paper and tree-free compostable paper receipts made from sugarcane pulp. Unlike other brands on our recommendations, Simple Ecology ensures their packaging is sustainable too.
You can also get these reusable produce bags on the Simple Ecology website.
Source: KonMari
KonMari Sunshine Series reusable organic produce bags come in a set of seven, with a variety of sizes. The set includes two small and two large mesh bags made of GOTS-certified organic cotton, ideal for all sizes of fruits and vegetables, as well as three medium-sized bags for carrying grains made of sustainably sourced hemp. These reusable produce bags feature drawstring closures and a tare weight indication on the label for more convenient checkout.
We really love this set because you can easily separate and organize different types of goods when you go shopping. Additionally, the hemp grain bags have a fantastic natural anti-microbial component that makes them resistant to mold and rot, making them perfect for storing bulks of grains, nuts, or beans.
Still having a hard time choosing from our recommendations? Here are our top picks to help you decide.
With only $13.38 for 8 reusable produce bags, Ever Eco is the most affordable of our top picks. Each of these reusable bags only costs $1.67 and can last many years with proper care.
The KonMari reusable produce bag set offers the best versatility. The set includes various sizes of mesh bags ideal for all types of fresh produce, as well as two grain bags ideal for storing grains, nuts, beans, and even sugar or salt.
Simple Ecology’s reusable produce bags are the most eco-friendly of our top picks. They are made with GOTS-certified muslin organic cotton, which ensures that they are sourced in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. Even their packaging and receipts are zero-waste, non-plastic, and made with non-tree paper, maximizing the brand’s sustainability.
Simple Ecology’s reusable produce bags are also the most durable of our top picks due to their muslin fabric. This type of cloth is sturdier than other mesh fabrics, making them ideal for extensive usage.
