{"id":1121,"date":"2021-01-22T15:13:40","date_gmt":"2021-01-22T15:13:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.law.fordham.edu\/elr\/?p=1121"},"modified":"2021-01-22T15:13:40","modified_gmt":"2021-01-22T15:13:40","slug":"eliminating-plastic-during-a-global-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/?p=1121","title":{"rendered":"Eliminating Plastic During a Global Pandemic"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>by Vivienne Brown, Fordham Environmental Law Review Journal Staff Member<\/p>\n

In February 2020, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Representative Alan Lowenthal of California introduced a new bill to hold manufacturers liable for plastic waste<\/a>. While the so-called Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has little chance of succeeding, it demonstrates increasing awareness of environmentalism at the federal level<\/a>. Shortly after the bill was announced, however, the rising trend towards environmental protection took an unexpected turn. The rapid spread of the novel coronavirus highlighted the importance of hygiene and disposable products<\/a>. \u201cWe simply don\u2019t want millions of Americans bringing germ-filled reusable bags into retail establishments putting the public and workers at risk,\u201d one advocacy group argued<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It remains unclear whether reusable bags actually spread germs<\/a>. Even though the actual risks of using reusable bags are dubious, plastic manufacturers are now using \u201cdisposability\u201d<\/a> as a marketing tool as the pandemic has shifted our focus away from sustainability. \u201cNow is not the time or place,\u201d John Flanagan, the top Republican in the New York State Senate, commented in an interview<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Responding to the displacement of sustainability initiatives, environmentalists have criticized arguments against banning plastic use<\/a>. However, there may not be long-term consequences after all. Julia Attwood, head of advanced materials at BloombergNEF<\/a>, noted that as long as the effects of the pandemic are a temporary setback, \u201cthere won\u2019t be much of an effect on the long term demand for plastic.\u201d Also important to note is the finding by the U.S. National Institutes of Health<\/a> that the novel coronavirus can survive on plastic surfaces for up to three days. In other words, consumers would have to promptly discard single-use plastics in order to benefit from their disposability and avoid spreading the virus.<\/p>\n

In fact, despite ongoing concerns about virus transmission, New Jersey became the first state legislature to vote for banning single-use plastic bags and paper bags this past September<\/a>. By banning both plastic and paper bags, New Jersey urges consumers to use eco-friendly reusable bags<\/a>. Other states like California, New York, and Vermont have also either banned single-use plastic bags or mobilized plans to ban them in the near future<\/a>. While the new bill will not take effect until 2022, many counties in New Jersey have already adopted their own restrictions<\/a> to ban single-use plastics. Overall, these changes in recent legislation demonstrate that there continues to be momentum towards environmental protection and elimination of plastics.<\/p>\n

While legislative efforts to protect the environment persist, the ban on plastic use has undoubtedly taken a huge step backwards during the pandemic. For example, Starbucks and Dunkin\u2019<\/a> have stopped accepting refillable mugs at their locations. Moreover, plastic products<\/a> such as bottled water and disposable plastic gloves are increasingly gaining popularity. As we continue to practice hygiene and contain virus transmission, it is important not to lose sight of the hurdles we have already overcome for environmental protection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Vivienne Brown, Fordham Environmental Law Review Journal Staff Member In February 2020, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Representative Alan Lowenthal of California introduced a new bill to hold manufacturers liable for plastic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fordhamlawelr.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}