A day at the Capitol

On the day it is born, a plastic bag is garbage. Aside from the days it will take to ship it from the manufacturer to the retailer where it is distributed, the life expectancy a plastic bag is measured in hours; it will transport goods from the retailer’s store to the consumer’s pantry. And then, it is thrown away. On occasion, the bag will win a reprieve, carrying someone’s sandwich to school, or riding along on some other such errand. Still, the life span of a plastic bag is very short. One might say it is junk the day it is born.

When I spoke at the State Capitol today in support of the Plastic Bag Recycling bill, now known as S.F. No. 267, my testimony was based on the extent to which plastic bags are among the “Floatables” we take out of the river on any given day. Beneath almost every storm sewer spillway, there is an oversized debris field, filled with trash. Within that floating island of trash, there are a variety of fountain cups, beverage and water bottles, Styrofoam bait containers… and plastic bags. You see them floating in the water, laying on the shoreline, and hanging in the trees… having been placed there like ornaments by the wind.

Many plastic bags are disposed of properly. Many are not.

S.F. No. 267 requires the operators of retail chains to play a proactive role in the recycling of the plastic bags they distribute, buy placing collection bins at the entrance or exit of their stores where used plastic bags can be deposited. Why is something so simple such a good idea?

Today, I drew a parallel to discarded tires. When you buy tires in Minnesota, the retailer must offer to take your used tires from you for appropriate disposal, in exchange for a reasonable fee (usually about $5). Sometimes, when people realize the service could add $20 to a set of tires, they opt to dispose of the tires on their own, “through alternate means,” and save the money. Then, because the tires cannot be discarded with their weekly trash or left at a landfill (by law), the tires often find their way into a ditch or waterway. In effect, the rules make it easier to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing. Laws should work the other way around.

If the consumer were made aware of a new recycling option for their plastic bags, and then reminded on every visit to the retailer, we would be making it easier to do the right thing.
Further, this is a solution which would be largely funded by the people who profit from introducing plastic bags into our environment in the first place: The manufacturers who make them and the retailers who distribute them.

To put it lightly, not everyone in the room agreed with my position on the matter. There were a couple of gentlemen from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce who did not think it was fair to place a mandate on small businesses; that the act of executing such a program and then keeping records as to their compliance would be too great a burden. They were followed by a representative from the Minnesota Grocers Association, who reiterated that position, and cited a number of volunteer recycling efforts which were making great progress in our state. Opponents of the bill submitted that 4.5 million pounds of plastic bags had been recycled since 2003… and that because of the success of reusable cloth bags, the use of plastic bags had been reduced by 13.3%. But none of these folks were able to offer a baseline; nobody knew how many tons of plastic bags were distributed in Minnesota. So nobody knows what percentage of the material is actually being recycled.

I applaud every effort that any retailer has put forth toward the cause of recycling. Every bag recycled is one less that will float my way in the river, drift in the wind, or litter our roadways, parks and lakes. But a first-hand look at our rivers—not to mention our wetlands, lakes, parks and roadways—indicate that what’s being done now is not enough. It does not take a long time on the river to realize that every ditch, street, and storm sewer is a tributary that carries garbage right into the river. Plastic bags included.

If so many retailers are engaged in recycling efforts already, I would think that S.F. No. 167 would be welcomed with open arms. It would mandate participation by a significantly larger number of chain store retailers in the metro area: Convenience stores, discount stores, specialty retailers, etc. It would make recycling efforts—and consumer awareness—pervasive.

Plastic bags continue to represent a significant share of the “floatables” that we recover during our clean-up efforts. If more of them were captured for recycling, then fewer would end up in our landscapes, lakes, and rivers. This is an issue which can be more economically prevented than solved.

As it stands now, the bill will be held over for future discussion and consideration; hopefully, it will become part of a future omnibus package, and passed. Stay tuned at the Senate web site.

In leiu of closing remarks, I will offer (below) a copy of my most recently updated map of trash targets in the north metro Mississippi River. Each marker represents a oversized debris field or dumped object. I think the map tells us the time has come for more preventative measures.

© 2009 Mike Anderson, Crystal, MN.

View Pre Clean-up Mississippi Targets 7-20-08 in a larger map

The economy or the environment: Yes

There seems to be a lot of debate right now--not all of it civil--with regard to matters of the environment, greenhouse gases, etc. The economy has many people questioning the extent to which we should be spending resources on "green" initiatives when so many companies are bleeding red ink and slashing jobs. Al Gore spoke on Capitol Hill in January, which drew intense criticism from people who are as extreme to the right as they perceive Mr. Gore to be extreme to the left. And here in Minnesota, the convergence of a recently-passed constitutional amendment to fund clean water and the arts has drawn fire of its own, now that the state's budget is written in red.

Frankly, I am frustrated by it all. Neither the economy nor the environment are helped by people on the outer edges of their political persuasion. And both parties offer sound reason with the arguments for their side of the issues. It is neither viewpoint I take issue with; it is when either party offers an ear-less, automated, contentious response to the other. I wish our "leadership" could regain their dignity and manners; and I wish the rest of us would grasp that good morsels exist, even in opposing opinions. Anyone who thinks the other side is absolutely wrong... is absolutely wrong.

You know what would help? If I could just get a few of these politicians and pundits out on a kayak... or to take a walk on a trail along the river. Not with the idea of talking them into funding or anything like that, but just to get them to shut-up for a minute... and listen. To water, to wildlife, to the wind as it whispers through trees... maybe even to each other.

In his "Nature" essay, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that, "...all natural objects make a kindred expression, when the mind is open to their influence."

Both the economy and the environment need some very serious help right now. If sanity prevails, and truly long-term thought is applied, neither issue will be ignored under the pretense of solving the other.

© 2009 Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

A response from the Senate

Last week, I received an email from Senator Ann Rest, that indeed she will be introducing a plastic bag recycling bill during the current legislative session. A version of the measure is also on its way to the House. Using the legislative website, we can track the progress of the bill once it has been introduced. When it gets to that point, I'll share links to information here.

Plastic shopping bags are #2 on my “most wanted list,” when it comes to floatable pollution which would be more easily prevented than recovered. (Plastic bottles and fountain cups are #1, and Styrofoam containers are #3.)

Thank you, Senator Rest, and thanks to your colleagues. I hope you’ll let me know if you need photos of spillways which deliver this kind of debris to our waterways.

© 2009 Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

Letters to the legislature

In the opening statement of his essay on Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau offered the refrain, “That government is best which governs least.” Thoreau—a naturalist in his own right—knew politics should never be the “go to” solution for every issue of the day.

I think Henry and I would have gotten along well. But at the same time, I also believe there is a time and place for the intervention of public policy in the interest of protecting America’s public waters and lands from any actions or ignorance which would damage or destroy them.

It should send a message to us all that the most beautiful places on Earth are those which have either been utterly abandoned by men, or those parts of the planet whose protection has been legislated by leaders and visionaries.

You can bear witness to the work of these visionaries right here, in our area. In a work that defines his legacy, Walter Mondale helped craft the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act… an achievement which protects our beloved St. Croix River Valley, among other waterways. The Wilderness Act of 1964 designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. A special BWCA regulation in 1965 provided the structure for the way the treasure is protected and managed today.

While these areas are treasures that certainly deserve vigilance and care, protection of public lands and waters should not be limited to the most spectacular of our natural resources.
These are the convictions which led me to write two letters last week, addressed to various members of the Minnesota Senate and the House of Representatives. Both letters had to do with measures which were introduced during the last legislative session, but which did not survive to reach full floor debate or passage, as near as I can tell. (Researching progress at the state’s legislative website is not as easy as you might think, and correspondence does not always receive a prompt response, especially when the legislature is between sessions.)

My first letter was directed to Senator Ellen Anderson (and colleagues on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources). A measure she introduced last year would have the people who make or distribute plastic shopping bags assume greater responsibility for the recapture and recycling of those bags.

A second letter was sent to Representative Melissa Hortman. She introduced legislation during the last session which would mandate similar behavior from the people who profit from the sale of plastic beverage bottles.

I am neither a statesman or politician. But from my vantage point, the essence of these bills was sound: The people who profit from bringing plastic into our environment should bear a significant share of the burden when it comes to taking them out of our environment. If that means placing conspicuous recycling options at the front of a chain store, so be it. If it means reporting quantities of product introduced into the state so the effectiveness of a recycling campaign can be measured, that seems to me a reasonable expectation.

Having spent hundreds of hours scouring miles of shoreline, we have seen first-hand the extent to which plastic bottles, bags, fountain cups and other plastic tarnishes the rivers of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and beyond. Every piece of debris that is recycled is one that shall not add to rivers overflowing with refuse… so either of these measures begins to solve a problem. Further, the burden of funding from these measures would fall to the people who benefit, financially, from the manufacturing and/or distribution of their respective packaging. Package which, I would argue, was destined to become trash on the day it was born.

You can either scroll down… or click here to see my letter to Senator Anderson (along with her measure on plastic bag recycling), or click here to read my note to Representative Hortman (along with her proposed bottle bill).

© 2009, Mike D. Anderson. All rights reserved.

In support of plastic bag recycling: A letter to the Minnesota Senate

In a letter addressed primarily to Senator Ellen Anderson dated January 14, I expressed support of a measure she had originally introduced in the 2007-2008 legislative session, mandating greater involvement in the recovery and recycling of plastic bags, on the part of the companies who manufacture, or chain stores which distribute the bags. Click here to review what was at one time referred to as SF 2800.

After my initial inquiry to Senator Anderson’s office last fall, an aid let me know that the measure failed to gain traction during the last session. I tried to follow-up on the matter a few weeks ago, but was told only (by the same aid) that the Senator had not yet finalized her legislative agenda. (Senator Anderson has no email address available at the legislative web site… only a web-based form. By now, my hunch is that she reads only the webmail notes which have been passed along by one of her aids. I’ve never heard a response from the Senator herself. So I sent this letter via traditional mail.

In addition to Senator Anderson, I addressed copies of the letter to leadership members of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, including Senator Satveer S. Chaudhary (Chair), Senator Dan Skogen (Vice Chair), and Senator Pat Pariseau (Ranking Minority Member). I also copied Senator Ann Rest, who represents the district in which Julie and I reside.

Click here to read my letter to Senator Anderson. [Note: To protect recipients from spamming, I removed the email addresses from the copy of the correspondence that is shared at the above links.]

© 2009, Mike D. Anderson. All rights reserved.

In support of a bottle bill: A letter to the Minnesota House

In a letter addressed primarily to Representative Melissa Hortman, I expressed support of a measure she introduced in the 2007-2008 legislative session, which would essentially require the wholesalers of products sold in plastic bottles to account for the number of pounds of plastic distributed each year (less the weight of product contents), and have a plan to gather plastic from the public to be recycled. The measure would set certain recycling expectations of each company, equivalent to a fixed percentage of the number of pounds they had sold or distributed the prior year. Click here to review what was at one time referred to as HR 4046.

My initial emails to Representative Hortman were sent last fall. I tried again with the commencement of the 2009 session in January. In her email response, she indicated that she was basically "floating the idea" when her bill was introduced last year, in the hopes of having it discovered by citizens like myself, thus allowing her to determine the extent of public support for the measure. She has mine.

In fact, in addition to the control of plastic bottles, I suggested that legislation might include the plastic cups that are distributed in the service of fountain drinks and beverages distributed at fast food restaurants, coffee shops, gas stations and convenience stores.

To read my letter to the House, just click here.

In addition to Representative Hortman, I sent copies the letter to congressional colleagues I understood to be co-authors of the bill, including: Representative Erin Murphy, Representative Mindy Greiling, Representative Linda Slocum, and Representative Tina Liebling. Further, I shared the letter with members of the Environmental Policy & Oversight Committee: Representative Kent Eken (Chair), Representative Paul Gardner (Vice Chair), Representative Denny McNamara (Lead GOP). And finally, I sent a copy of the letter to Lyndon Carlson, the Representative from the district where Julie and I reside.

[Note: To protect recipients from spamming, I have removed email addresses from this copy of the correspondence.]

© 2009, Mike D. Anderson. All rights reserved.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to pay for our plastic

Credit cards have long offered the promise that you can “enjoy now, and pay later.” Paying with plastic can be convenient… but often, that first bill arrives just about the time that the novelty of our purchase has worn off. (This is called buyer’s remorse.) If we don’t pay that debt promptly, interest charges can make the real cost of our purchase wildly more expensive. It is a simple premise that most of us can relate to: Plastic = convenience, but sooner or later, you’re going to have to pay.

Credit cards are not the only kind of liability we’re creating with plastic. In earlier posts, I've shared some thoughts about the big problems created by light trash and litter. Among the most threatening elements in this group: Anything made of plastic or Styrofoam.

Now… if you work with a plastics company, or a soft drink bottler, or a retail store that still provides customers plastic bags… relax. I’m not "out to get you." I’m of the mind that “plastics don’t pollute… people do.” But you might want to pay attention to this conversation; my position will be that anyone who profits from the use of plastic should be complicit in solving the side effects of that use. (Click to enlarge this photo. If you see your logo, drop me a note.)

Plastic and other polymers are a good thing, on a number of levels. They’re lightweight, durable, and cheap. And above all, stuff made of plastic lasts a long, long time. But the attributes that make plastic wonderful are the same reasons it is so dastardly. Because it is lightweight, durable and cheap, we use it to make things that are literally designed to be thrown away on the day they are born (garbage bags, packaging). Because it is so inexpensive to make, we use it in an infinite variety of products and packaging—we produce a breathtaking volume of the stuff—ranging from fountain cups, to soft drink bottles, to shopping bags to… well, you get the drift. Finally, this multitude of products we produce—much of it meant to be tossed—is chemically constructed in such a way that it will last nearly forever. All of these factors have colluded to create a problem that needs attention.

I found a dramatic piece of writing about the life cycle of plastic, and how it impacts the life cycle of water and its’ inhabitants, at the web site for the Ocean Conservancy; click here to read it. More unsettling than that, I’ve recently studied some reports about a field of plastic and other trash, floating on the Pacific Ocean, which some researchers estimate to be larger than the surface area of the continental United States. I’m not making this stuff up: There are tons of reports out there about the islands of trash in the North Pacific Gyre, but a quick and easy explanation is offered in a 2004 report from CBS News. You can either read their report… or see this three-minute video.

The debt we have created with our use of plastic is coming due, and I intend to begin “making a few payments.” Certainly, we're far from perfect, but our family has begun to make smarter choices about our personal use of plastic. We’ve been recycling for years, but now, Julie has helped our family embrace the idea of canvass totes, so we use fewer plastic shopping bags. We have a water purifier and have greatly reduced our use of bottled water or soft drinks. Certainly, we're far from perfect. We're simply trying to reduce our use.

As far as our river restoration projects are concerned, we’ll continue to recover what trash we can from the water, and encourage others to do the same. But I’m also going to get more aggressive about studying this particular problem, and how it evolves from the manufacturer, to the retailer, to the consumer, and into the storm drains and waterways. I repeat this simple belief: Plastic is not a bad thing, when used responsibly and disposed of properly. But if you profit through its’ use, either as a consumer who enjoys convenience, or as a company who earns revenue through plastic products or packaging, it is reasonable to expect that you should participate in managing the consequences of that use. You’ll forgive me if I start making some noise about that.

Feel free to share your thoughts by sending us an email.

© 2008, 2009 Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally posted March 5, 2008.]

Sacking one source of pollution

On February 8, 2008, The New York Times had a story which served as a good example of the message I wanted to get across in a recent post. It explained that Ireland has levied a relatively high price on the continued use of plastic bags at retail stores. If you want a plastic bag to carry your groceries (or whatever) in, you can still have it. But each bag will cost you roughly 33 cents. They haven't outlawed the bags... they've just made using them more painful than not using them.

So more people are carrying more durable, re-usable, cloth bags. The cloth bags, with much lower impact on the environment, now also have less of an impact on one's wallet than continuing to use plastic bags. Click on this link to read the full story (no-cost subscription required). If the story becomes unavailable to you, drop me a note and I'll get you a copy.

Again: It is a matter of stakes. When doing the wrong thing becomes more expensive than doing the right thing, the right things will prevail.

© 2008, 2009, Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally published 2/4/08.]

We need to make it hurt

I'm no fan of big government. But reviewing some of the photos I took of the trash problem last fall, this simple thought resurfaces, which I know I have stated before:

The cost of doing the wrong thing should hurt more than the price of doing the right thing.

Throughout the state legislature, the counties, the municipalities; it should be very, very expensive to pull off the road near a spillway and toss an appliance out of a truck. There should be near-debilatating financial consequences for someone to pull over on a bridge and throw a tire into a river.

Enforcement would be difficult. But if the penalty were such that the fear of loss would far outweigh the convenience of doing the wrong thing... perhaps the outcome would be greater compliance of environmental law.

© 2008, 2009, Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally published January, 2008.]

Hiding under the snow...

This morning, there was a fresh blanket of snow in Minnesota. Even for someone who’s eager for spring thaw so I can get back on the water, it was a beautiful sight. The new flakes have a whitewashing effect… it leaves the place feeling clean, pure, serene.

But in many ways, this purity is only a cover-up. Within a couple of weeks, the snow will begin melting, and the drifts will begin to reveal all of the trash they’ve been hiding since last fall.

Often, we focus on the dumping of large, conspicuous debris, such as tires, appliances, car parts, etc. But some of the greatest harm done to our rivers comes from the trash which is (often unconsciously) allowed into the environment. Any one of these items or incidents might seem innocuous enough. Soda pop cans and water bottles, coffee cups and cigarette butts, plastic shopping bags and other assorted litter. Some of it is left in the shopping cart at a discount store parking lot, and some of it spills out of convenience store garbage can that has waited too long to be emptied.

But watersheds working the way they do, sooner or later, a great deal of this trash is being flushed into the river, even though the origin of the litter might be miles and miles away. The wind or rain carries it from the street or parking lot into a nearby storm sewer. (Or, some people actually toss trash into the grate of a street sewer, thinking it is some kind of a magical garbage disposal; “out of sight, out of mind” strikes again!) But the sewer system acts as a direct conduit… sending not just street water, but all that it carries, directly into the river.

Trash tossed into the street anywhere within the Mississippi River watershed is eventually headed to the Gulf of Mexico. West of the continental divide, it’s headed for the Pacific Ocean, and to the east, it’s floating into the Atlantic. Other destinations? Hudson’s Bay, the Great Lakes, or any of a million smaller lakes, ponds and shorelines where debris will be captured until it is either cleaned up, or decompose.

But that might take a while. According to American Rivers.org, your basic plastic bottle will take roughly 430 years to decompose completely. An aluminum can will take anywhere from 200 to 500 years to deteriorate. A disposable diaper, 550 years.

It has not taken very much survey work to understand the extent of the trash problem, flowing into our rivers. It is an issue that deserves greater thought and attention; something it will receive here at DisposeOfProperly.com, as well as our sister site, CleanUpTheRiver.com. If you have thoughts to share on the topic, drop me an email.

The fresh snow outside my window this morning looks wonderful. But as the parking lot snow piles and roadside drifts begin to melt away this spring, a lot of previously hidden trash will again be revealed. April showers will wash it all “out of sight,” but make no mistake: The trash does not disappear… it only finds somewhere else to go.

© 2008, 2009, Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally posted 3/5/08.]

Pollution: Anything but "isolated."

In June, 2008, a story in USA Today asserted that flooding of the Mississippi River would create "isolated risk" of pollution.

Pardon?

Think of the contaminants which find their way into our waterways on any given day... without the added pressure of Mother Nature flushing-out our river basins to absorb anything within reach. Propane and fuel oil tanks. Fertilizers from crop lands. Fecies from feed lots. Isolated? The reporter that calls flooding along the Ol' Miss an "isoliated pollution risk" should volunteer to take a glass from the river and drink it. We'll see how isolated he/she feels within the 24 hours that follow.

There was great tragedy along the Mississippi River during the flood of 2008, just as there was back in 1993. People are losing homes, farms, livelihoods. I feel for their loss (I've experienced the agony of loss as the victim of flooding).

But that having been said, the flood of 2008 serves as a reminder that anything which resides within a flood plain stands to impact the river... and any land, habitat or city that waits downstream.

© 2008, 2009, Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally posted June 24, 2008.]

Environmental illiteracy

On July 29, 2008, The New York Times ran a story today that discussed the lack of recycling in select cities across the U.S. The inaction speaks for itself. Read the story by clicking here, and you'll see why I have nothing to add.

-Mike

[This story was originally posted on 7/29/08.]

The intentions of this site

Cleaning-up a river doesn’t sound too complicated, does it? Grab a few garbage bags, walk a mile or two of shoreline, and before you know it… the river is back to its’ original, beautiful condition, right? Sometimes, cleaning up a river can be that easy… kind of fun, in fact.

Other times, the problem can be more daunting.

Over the past two years, my wife and I have hundreds of miles of river navigation; some of it by canoe, and the rest of it by kayak. We’ve learned that different waterways can have dramatically different needs, in terms of their clean-up needs. Some of those needs are quite simple, where a walking trash collection event would help get things back on track. For other rivers, the shoreline is navigable only by small vessel (canoe or kayak), due to both water depth and obstructions (both natural and man-made).

Beyond the problems that exist, we are learning more than you might imagine about the causes which precipitate waterway pollution. That is why this site exists, as a companion to CleanUpTheRiver.com.

At CleanUpTheRiver.com, we’ve focused on individual efforts and group clean-up events. We have encouraged people to adopt their own parcels of river or participate in existing clean-up programs. We’ve explained how someone in a kayak can use GPS technology and digital photos to survey problem areas, and then gather the human and equipment resources needed to effectively clear a shoreline. We’ve share stories of progress and failure. And we've offered photos and stories from the most beautiful rivers, streams and backwaters that Minnesota and Wisconsin have to offer. (Memories and images are the reward of a well-protected waterway.)

DisposeOfProperly.com will serve a different purpose. This site is intended to be a place where we can talk prevention, legislation and communication. We’ll do our best to share ideas... and publicize the efforts of businesses, clubs and other community groups who are working hard to help restore a river, or prevent their pollution in the first place.

Or, when the parties have failed, we might ask some questions, too.

If you’re a solo kayak lover, part of a canoeing duo, someone who loves hiking a remote trail or walking along a waterside park... drop me an email to share your stories, your ideas, or your take on what should come next.

© 2008, 2009 Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.

[Originally published 1/1/08.]

Lets try this again

After preparing for nearly a year with in-field tasks, we decided to launch a pair of blogs to chronicle our river restoration efforts in January, 2008. The first site was http://cleanuptheriver.com,/ which focuses directly on our river restoration efforts; the waterways we have adopted, the method of geo-trashing we have refined, and the debris we have recovered. The second blog is the one you're visiting now: http://disposeofproperly.com/. The intent of this site is to focus more on systemic problems, public policy, consumer attitudes and other issues which contribute to or complicate the pollution problems facing our precious lands and waterways.

As you can see with a quick visit to the river site, waterway and shoreline restoration has consumed a great deal of our attention this year. We have learned a lot about how to do this, and how not to. Plus, a variety of family needs demanded our attention in 2008. Something had to give; it ended up being this second blog. Because most of our available time was spent on the water, or refining our techniques, there was little time to devote to research, anyway.

But now, with the tasks of 2008 behind us, and with the creation of CleanUpTheRiver.com in full stride, we return to this site. We start with a blank slate... aside from re-publishing some of the stories which originally appeared last year.

Already, more has happened "behind the scenes" with this part of our project than happened all of last year. We're in a better position to share those efforts, and will do so soon. Thanks for your patience... and now let us give you a web site that's nothing but garbage.

© 2009 Mike D. Anderson, Crystal, MN.