Plastic and paper bag ban and food waste recycling bills up for votes Thursday in NJ

By Frank Brill, EnviroPolitics Editor

Among the list of bills posted for a vote Thursday (3/5/20) in the New Jersey Senate, are two ‘biggies’ that are being reconsidered in the new legislative session (with some changes) after falling short of enactment last year.

They are the much-reported ban on plastic and paper grocery bags (S-864) and the recycling of food waste by large-scale generators (A2371/ S865).

To watch and listen to the live session (generally starting sometime after 2 p.m.) click here. After entering the site, click on the large, red Live Proceedings button. If you arrive after the session is over, click on the Archived Proceedings button for a session re-run. NOTE: If the session has not started when you first access the site, you will need to refresh your browser occasionally until the proceedings have begun.

Environmental bills posted for votes on Thursday:

Bill:               A2371 AcaAca (2R)
Sponsors:    Kennedy (D22); Pinkin (D18); Zwicker (D16) Summary:   Requires large food waste generators to separate and recycle food waste and amends definition of “Class I renewable energy.”

Bill:               S221
Sponsors:    Diegnan (D18)
Summary:   Concerns expenses to municipalities for tree purchase, planting, and removal.

Bill:               S864 ScaSa (2R)
Sponsors:    Smith (D17); Greenstein (D14)
Summary:   Prohibits provision or sale of single‑use plastic carryout bags, single‑use paper carryout bags, and polystyrene foam food-service products; limits the provision of single‑use plastic straws; appropriates the money from Clean Communities Program Fund

Bill:               S865
Sponsors:    Smith (D17); Bateman (R16) +1
Summary:   Requires large food waste generators to separate and recycle food waste and amends the definition of “Class I renewable energy.”

Bill:               S1016 Scs (SCS)
Sponsors:    Smith (D17)
Summary:   Restricts the use of neonicotinoid pesticides; directs DEP to study, and authorizes the DEP to restrict systemic insecticides.

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Plastic and paper bag ban and food waste recycling bills up for votes Thursday in NJ Read More »

Chris Matthews, the longtime MSNBC host of ‘Hardball,’ announces his retirement

”Hardball” host Chris Matthews announced his resignation from the program on Monday. (Omar Rawlings/AFP/Getty Images)
”Hardball” host Chris Matthews announced his resignation from the program on Monday. (Omar Rawlings/AFP/Getty Images)

Paul Farhi reports for the Washington Post
March 2, 2020 at 7:05 p.m. EST

Chris Matthews, the long-running host of “Hardball” on MSNBC, announced Monday that he is resigning from the program, an abrupt exit prompted by a series of recent gaffes and controversies.

Matthews, 74, made the announcement at the start of his weeknight program. His resignation is effectively immediately, MSNBC said.

Matthews has been a familiar commentator on cable news for the past quarter-century and his departure, which Matthews called a retirement, was a surprise.

The host appeared for about two minutes at the start of his program at 7 p.m. and effectively signed off on his television career. The network immediately went to a commercial break.

Upon return, Steve Kornacki, Matthews’ temporary replacement, told viewers, “That was a lot to take in.” He called Matthews “a giant” and “a legend,” adding “I think you’re going to miss him and I will, too.” He then went to another commercial break.

MSNBC has not announced Matthews’ replacement.

Related:
Chris Matthews announces retirement, mutually parts ways with MSNBC (NBC)
Chris Matthews Out at MSNBC (New York Times)

Chris Matthews, the longtime MSNBC host of ‘Hardball,’ announces his retirement Read More »

New York’s plastic bag ban goes into effect but lawsuit delays fines by a month

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio hands out reusable grocery bags at the Union Square Farmers Market ahead of the March 1st statewide ban on single-use plastic bags.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio hands out reusable grocery bags at the Union Square Farmers Market ahead of the March 1st statewide ban on single-use plastic bags. Taidgh Barron photo

New York statewide plastic bag ban began on Sunday — but actual enforcement won’t start for a month, officials said Friday.

By Bernadette HoganNatalie O’Neill, and Vincent Barone, New York Post

State authorities agreed Thursday to delay penalizing stores violating New York’s ban of single-use plastic bags until April 1 after grocers filed a last-minute lawsuit to try and block the law.

Officials announced the deal after a closed-door preliminary Supreme Court hearing in Albany.

“We have consistently said since the beginning of our outreach campaign that we will focus on education rather than enforcement and today does not change that,” said a spokeswoman at the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, adding it was “pleased” that a temporary restraining order wasn’t issued.

Mayor de Blasio, meanwhile, was down in Union Square Friday boosting the policy while city staffers dished out 2,000 reusable tote bags to passers-by.

“We only have one chance to save our planet,” de Blasio said. “Reducing the use of plastic bags will help us create a more sustainable city. New Yorkers: Don’t forget to bring your reusable bag to shop starting on March 1, and if you need a bag, we’ve got you.”

Here’s what New Yorkers need to know about the ban:

What’s going on?

A new law passed by state lawmakers Albany last March bans plastic bags at most stores and allows retailers to charge a 5-cent fee for each paper bag. The policy takes effect March 1, but the state will wait a month before dishing out fines.

Why?

The legislation aims to reduce litter and help protect wildlife in the Empire State, where more than 23 billion plastic bags are used a year, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

Which stores will be affected?

All shops that collect sales tax, including grocery stores, bodegas and retailers across Empire State.

Once enforcement begins in April, stores caught in violation of the ban will first be issued a verbal warning. The penalty for a second violation is $250 and the penalty for a third or subsequent violation is $500.

What isn’t affected?

Plastic bags can still be doled out for uncooked meat, bulk items, takeout at restaurants and prescription drugs.

What can shoppers do instead?

Bring your own reusable bag made from cotton, recycled polypropylene or other materials. You can also buy one at some stores, or pay the extra 5-cent fee for a paper sack. That’s if one is available — retailers are predicting a shortage when the ban hits.

Where does the 5 cents go?

Two cents is given to local government and 3 cents goes to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund.

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

New York’s plastic bag ban goes into effect but lawsuit delays fines by a month Read More »

Uber and Lyft Are Convenient, Competitive and Highly Carbon Intensive

A new study finds the ride-hailing companies emit nearly 70 percent more carbon thanks largely to a practice known as “deadheading.”

BY PHIL MCKENNA for Inside Climate News

About 42 percent of the miles driven by ride-hailing vehicles like Uber and Lyft are done between rides. This portion, called “deadheading”, is behind the increased emissions and congestion caused by these vehicles, a new study shows. Credit: Justin Sulli
About 42 percent of the miles driven by ride-hailing vehicles like Uber and Lyft are done between rides. This portion, called “deadheading”, is behind the increased emissions and congestion caused by these vehicles, a new study shows. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft are transforming urban transportation and eclipsing competitors with convenient, on-demand service. But that convenience carries a distinct climate cost as ride-hailing vehicles emit nearly 70 percent more carbon dioxide on average than the other forms of transportation they displace, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report, released Tuesday, zeroes in on a little-known aspect of ride-

hailing known as “deadheading”—the miles a vehicle travels without a passenger between hired rides—that is responsible for much of the emissions and increased congestion. It also highlights policies that could significantly reduce emissions from the rides.

Don’t miss stories like this Click for Blog updates

“While ride-hailing trips today are higher emitting than other types of trips, we were encouraged by the fact that they can be significantly lower polluting with efforts to electrify and pool rides,” said Don Anair, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Transportation Program and an author of the report. “The outlook could be positive with some concrete steps by the companies to move forward, as well as policymakers to support that.”

The report, an analysis of previously released data from ride-hailing companies and a synthesis of prior academic studies, first compared the average emissions per trip-mile of private passenger vehicles to those of ride-sharing vehicles across seven major U.S. cities. While ride-hailing vehicles were typically newer and more efficient than the average private vehicle, they had significantly higher associated emissions due to deadheading. Approximately 42 percent of the miles driven by ride-hailing vehicles were miles traveled between hired rides with only the driver in the vehicle.

When ride-hailing trips are pooled, simultaneously transporting two or more unrelated passengers headed in the same direction, emissions from ride-sharing were roughly equivalent to private vehicles. Electric ride-hailing vehicles had significantly lower emissions than the average private vehicle, emissions that dropped even further when rides were shared.

The report also compared ride sharing to other lower-carbon modes of transportation, including public transit, walking and biking. A prior survey of ride-hailing users across California asked what mode of transportation they would have used had they not used ride-hailing. Approximately 30 percent said they would have used mass transit, walked, biked or not taken the trip at all.

When compared to the average emissions of all other modes of transportation, including private cars, mass transit, human-powered transit or simply staying put, emissions from the typical ride-hailing trip were an estimated 69 percent higher.

Ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft are transforming urban transportation and eclipsing competitors with convenient, on-demand service. But that convenience carries a distinct climate cost as ride-hailing vehicles emit nearly 70 percent more carbon dioxide on average than the other forms of transportation they displace, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Read the full story

We’re always looking for stories that might interest our readers. If you come across something so interesting that it cries out to be shared, please send it to editor@enviropolitics.com  If we agree, you’ll see it here soon.   

Uber and Lyft Are Convenient, Competitive and Highly Carbon Intensive Read More »

Senate prepares to vote his week on big energy bill

BY STEVEN MUFSON AND DINO GRANDONI with Paulina Firozi in the Washington Post

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) stops in the hall to greet Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) before a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting in 2015. (Andrew Harnik for The Washington Post)
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) stops in the hall to greet Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) before a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meeting in 2015. (Andrew Harnik for The Washington Post)

By Steven Mufson and Dino Grandoni 

In a divided Congress that has trouble passing anything, can energy policy be an exception? 

The Senate is preparing to vote this week on a major piece of legislation designed to move the country toward using cleaner sources of energy. The sprawling bill binds together about 50 energy-related proposals and would touch nearly every part of the nation’s energy sector.

But critics are already calling the package a hodgepodge of modest steps at a time when the planet is careening toward dangerous levels of warming and more ambitious legislation is needed to wean the world’s biggest economy off polluting fossil fuels.

Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, introduced the 555-page measure Thursday with the hope of winning over the support of both Republicans and Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), eager to bring it to the floor, signaled a vote could happen as early as this week. 

Like this? Click to receive free EP Blog updates

The bill, dubbed the American Energy Innovation Act, isn’t specifically about climate change. The word “climate” appears only once in a two-page summary of the bill. But it does support some ways of slowing down the release of heat-trapping emissions.

Manchin said the legislation would “make a down payment on emissions-reducing technologies, reassert the United States’ leadership role in global markets, enhance our grid security, and protect consumers.”

Murkowski said in a statement that the bill was “our best chance to modernize our nation’s energy policies in more than 12 years.” She said that “we can promote a range of emerging technologies that will help keep energy affordable even as it becomes cleaner and cleaner.”

The measure comes as congressional Republicans have started to gingerly reposition themselves on the issue of climate change, with many of them acknowledging that it is real and exacerbated by mankind. But most GOP lawmakers and President Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” are still shying away from addressing climate change head on. 

The Murkowski-Manchin bill would tackle greenhouse gas emissions from different angles. 

It would mandate greater energy efficiency in federal buildings, offer rebates for consumers who buy more efficient motors for home appliances, extend for 15 years incentives for hydroelectric power, and put money toward research for wind, solar and geothermal energy, as well as advanced batteries.

With regard to nuclear energy, which produces half the nation’s carbon-free power, the legislation would accommodate licensing light-water reactors and provide money for new nuclear technologies. 

And the package also establishes a study for technology using coal and natural gas, and funds techniques for capturing carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, and using it in industrial processes.

The bill has the backing of the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s global energy institute, which urged the Senate to pass the bill “without delay.” Yet it was met with mixed reaction from environmentalists, complicating how Democrats will ultimately vote on the measure.

The Environmental Defense Fund praised the package for taking “useful steps” to tackle climate change. “At a time of increasing polarization in Washington, bipartisan leadership on climate is all the more crucial,” said Elizabeth Gore, the group’s senior vice president for political affairs.

But Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the bill does too little to slash the use of fossil fuels when U.N. scientists say the world needs to drastically slash emissions over the next decade to forestall dangerous warming. “This gargantuan bill does little to address the climate crisis,” she said.

Another controversial part of the bill concerns mining. 

The bill would require the federal government to designate a list of critical minerals and encourage it to “complete federal permits efficiently.” 

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Senate prepares to vote his week on big energy bill Read More »

Trump’s Nevada play leaves the nation’s nuclear waste in limbo

The president wants to win the state he narrowly lost in 2016, but he may be jumping into an energy issue.

Yucca Mountain
People leave the south portal of the proposed radioactive waste dump of Yucca Mountain in July 2018 during a congressional tour near Mercury, Nev. | John Locher, File/AP Photo

By ERIC WOLFF and ANTHONY ADRAGNA in Politico

President Donald Trump is seeking to woo Nevada voters by abandoning the GOP’s decades of support for storing the nation’s nuclear waste under a mountain northwest of Las Vegas — a move that could drag the White House into an unsolvable political stalemate.

Trump, who is targeting a state that he narrowly lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016, announced the turnabout in a tweet this month, writing: “Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain and my Administration will RESPECT you!”

He also pledged to find “innovative approaches” to find a new place to store the 90,000 metric tons of nuclear plant leftovers stranded at 120 temporary storage sites — an impasse that is on course to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

The statement surprised people involved in the debate because developing a permanent nuclear repository at Yucca has long been a priority of Republicans, and even Trump’s own budget proposals in previous years had sought money to keep it alive. Taxpayers spent $15 billion developing the nuclear site after Congress selected the location during the Reagan era, only to see the Obama administration freeze the plan amid opposition from the state’s political leaders.

Trump’s Yucca reversal echoed his previous efforts to untangle a political food fight involving the federal ethanol mandate, an attempt that left both gasoline refiners and Iowa’s corn growers furious. Once again, Trump could face political risks by intervening in a politically charged, no-win energy quagmire.

Some lawmakers also fear that Trump is undermining their efforts to work out a compromise in which some states agree to host a small number of interim waste storage sites while the search for a long-term solution continues.

“Not working on a permanent repository is going to make it harder to do consent-based interim storage, ’cause all of a sudden those communities are going to be going, ‘s—, we’re going to become permanent storage,’” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a senior House appropriator who has long-championed the Yucca project, told

“It’s a no-win situation for anybody, that doesn’t seem to change,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is neutral on Yucca but supports building a repository somewhere.

Read the full story

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

Trump’s Nevada play leaves the nation’s nuclear waste in limbo Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights