SACRAMENTO — California is often seen as a national leader on eco-friendly policy, but environmentalists say that perception doesn’t match the brutal year they’ve faced in the state Legislature.
Nearly every major environmental measure at the Capitol has been killed or shelved this session, from a bill that would have required buffer zones around oil drilling sites near homes to another that would have required large corporations to report their greenhouse gas emissions.
RL Miller, president of Climate Hawks Vote, an environmental advocacy group, said the failed effort to create setbacks around oil wells was a harbinger of the legislative session that has followed. She said the state — once a national laboratory for green policy — seems to have given up on ambitious climate policy, even as it faces a mega-drought and worsening wildfires.
“California has just lost its way,” Miller said. “I have nothing good to say about the Legislature this year. I’m very disappointed.”
Activists’ frustrations flared again Thursday, when the Assembly shot down a measure that would have banned online retailers from using some plastic packaging that isn’t recyclable — the third year in a row that legislation to reduce plastic waste has stalled.
The plastic packaging bill, AB1371, by Assembly Member Laura Friedman, D-Glendale (Los Angeles County), would have required large online companies to stop shipping items in plastic packaging that’s designed to be used once and tossed in the trash, such as padded Amazon envelopes or polystyrene peanuts.
Her measure died on a 36-28 vote, five votes short of the majority needed to pass. About two dozen Democrats either opposed the bill or did not vote, sparking an outcry from many activists.
“Tough year is putting it lightly. It has been a bloodbath on anything significant, anything tough related to climate or the environment,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. “It’s more proof that corporate polluters pull the strings in Sacramento.”
A coalition of business groups, including plastics companies and the California Chamber of Commerce, opposed Friedman’s bill. They said eliminating such packaging could result in more damaged items or spoiled food.
Friedman told legislators that amendments to the bill would exclude perishable food and pharmaceuticals. She stressed that other countries have already started phasing out plastic packaging by using paper and other materials that can be easily reused or recycled.
“Californians shouldn’t have to worry that the packaging that comes with our online purchases will pollute our oceans, our coasts and our communities every time we place an order,” said Ashley Blacow-Draeger, a spokeswoman for environmental advocacy group Oceana, which backed the bill.
The most sweeping plastic waste bill proposed this year, SB54 by Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, was shelved for this term by its author. Industry groups have fought to kill versions of the measure for the last three years. It would have required all disposable packaging and food service ware, such as plastic cups and utensils, to be recyclable or compostable by 2032.
Allen said he’s still negotiating with concerned groups, both about the bill and a similar plastics ballot measure that could go before voters in 2022.
“The plastic pollution crisis is too dire and we remain steadfast in our commitment to address our state’s mounting waste,” he said in a statement. “Either through legislation or the ballot measure, we will get this done.”
Environmentalists said the plastics issue is another example of how the Democratic super-majority in the Legislature has often deferred to industry lobbyists, particularly those from fossil fuel companies, whose products are used to produce plastic.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood (Los Angeles County), said while he was also disappointed by the defeat of several environmental bills, he still expects the Legislature will still pass significant measures this year, saying, “the game isn’t over.”
“For as long as I’ve been speaker, California has passed some of the most far-reaching environmental and climate-response legislation in the nation,” he said in a statement. “I don’t expect this year to be any different.”
Rendon noted that the state budget is also expected to include billions of dollars for projects to prevent wildfires, help the state adapt to drought, plan for the effects of climate change and boost clean transportation.
But environmentalists said California can’t nibble around the edges with less-significant legislation if it hopes to confront the existential threat posed by climate change.
Tensions between the Legislature and activists hit fever pitch in April, when a Senate committee rejected AB467, which would have banned the oil extraction technique of fracking next year along with several other forms of fossil-fuel drilling by 2035.
The bill, by Democratic state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Monique Limón of Santa Barbara, would have also required that new or retrofitted oil and gas wells be kept 2,500 feet away from homes, schools and other public places.
Organized labor and industry groups said the bill could have put thousands of jobs in jeopardy. Rudy Gonzalez, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, warned legislators at the time: “Our blue-collar workers can’t afford this now.”
After the bill’s defeat, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the state to stop issuing permits for fracking by 2024 and to create plans to end fossil-fuel drilling in the state by 2045 — a timeline many environmentalists said is too slow.
Wiener and Limón attempted to revive part of their bill to create setbacks between oil wells and homes and public places. But that effort fizzled in committee.
“It was just very frustrating to see Democrats again fail to pass meaningful reform on oil and and gas activity, especially as a lack of setbacks disproportionately harm disadvantaged communities,” said Alexandra Nagy, state director of Food & Water Watch, an advocacy group.
Despite the many disappointments for environmentalists, this legislative session has brought some glimmers of progress. Blacow-Draeger of Oceana said advocates are hopeful that several other measures to reduce plastic pollution are still moving.
Those plastic bills were among several eco-friendly measures that cleared a major procedural hurdle recently, passing out out of the chamber where they were introduced ahead of Thursday’s deadline. A few highlights:
• SB343, by Allen, would prohibit manufacturers from labeling products with the word “recyclable” or the chasing-arrows symbol associated with recycling if they are not recyclable. The bill advances to the Assembly.
• AB478, by Assembly Member Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would require that recycled plastic be used to help make thermoform plastic containers, such as berry boxes and clamshells. The bill, which advances to the Senate, would require a minimum of 30% recycled content by 2030.
• AB1395, by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance (Los Angeles County), would declare that the state must achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The bill directs state air-quality regulators to create a plan to get to that target. It narrowly squeaked out of the Assembly and advances to the Senate.
• AB1346, by Assembly Member Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, would ban the sale of new gas-powered leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other small off-road engines, which emit high levels of pollution, starting in 2024. The bill advances to the Senate.
Dustin Gardiner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: dustin.gardiner@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @dustingardiner