What message did the National Park Service send with its statement, after deciding to reverse a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles, that the move reflected "its commitment to providing a safe and world-class visitor experience..."?
That corporate lobbying carries the day?
That plastic pollution is not a global problem?
That it really isn't concerned about climate change?
That politics rule the day?
That its Green Parks Plan, which stresses sustainability and recycling, was little more than a slogan?
What the Park Service failed to mention when it said the reversal "comes after a review of the policy’s aims and impact in close consultation with Department of the Interior leadership" was that a new member of that leadership, Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, until joining the administration worked for a Washington, D.C., firm that lobbied for Nestle Water.
Plastic waste is an international problem. Not only do plastic bottles and other plastic waste take roughly 450 years to decompose -- for some bottles, it can be nearly three times as long -- but before that happens plastics pollute our oceans, where they are ingested by marinelife and seabirds, and litter landscapes.
Plastics in our oceans threaten marine life, human health and the viability of critical marine ecosystems. Marine life dies from plastic ingestion and entanglement, litter covers our coral reefs, and our food chain becomes increasingly contaminated.
Plastics never go away. Instead, they break down into smaller and smaller pieces, which act as magnets for polluting toxins. Eaten by fish, those chemical-laden microplastics work their way up the food chain and into our food supply. -- Oceana.org
Plastic waste also adversely impacts soils, according to Chemical and Engineering News.
According to the staff at Grand Canyon National Park, the ban:
- "(D)ecreases in plastics going to the landfill (although about 35% of the park’s waste stream is currently diverted to be recycled, it is estimated by the waste management staff that about 50% of what is taken to the landfill could also be recycled)"
- Helps reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated by the manufacture of plastic bottles
- Reduces litter, of which plastic bottles are one of the top two sources along the rim trails
- Protects wildlife against plastic ingestion,
- And can even save visitors money as refilling stations are free.
"While the lifting of the ban is disappointing to hear, I believe that only a relatively few national parks (Bryce and Grand Canyon being two of them) actually took the step to ban sale of disposable water bottles in their parks," said Brent Reinke, a founder of Vapur, a reuseable water container. The company also has worked with parks to install water filling stations.
"So while there will likely be an impact on the effort to limit disposable water bottle sales (and accompanying waste associated with those bottles), I still believe there is and will be continued strong efforts to promote the use of reusable water bottles in our National Park System," he added.
At the Sierra Club, Public Lands Policy Director Athan Manuel said the Park Service's reversal "is clearly an industry-oriented move further emphasizing where this administration’s allegiances stand."
"Actions that roll back protections on our national parks and public lands only move our country backward -- putting the importance of local economies, wildlife and communities on the back burner. The reversal is but a symbol for this administration’s larger attacks on environmental safeguards and protection of public lands."
The point of the ban wasn't to entirely rid the landscape of plastics. That was evident in that it didn't also ban the sale of sodas and other drinks in plastic containers. But by providing refilling stations and mounting education campaigns around the problem of plastics and the value of reusable containers, the Park Service was taking a responsible stand to both educate visitors and reduce, if even just a little, the amount of litter.
In December 2011, then-Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, in a memorandum to his regional directors on the question of plastic water bottle sales, wrote that, "(S)ustainability is a signature effort for the National Park Service. We must be a visible exemplar of sustainability, so it is imperative that we move our sustainability program forward as an organization."
Sadly, with the reversal, the Park Service has moved its program backwards.
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
The only correct answer is that Politics Rules The Day. (And money)
This was not a Park Service decision. And the Park Service is not the only agency being dumped on by Herr Drumpf. When it comes to envrionment and good sense versus dollars, we know which side will win.
The NPS has been Trumped . . . . and this is just one of the first body blows the agency will receive.
Maybe the 25th Amendment will save us. . . .
(Well, I can dream can't I?)
I know facts upset people like yourself, but Obama did the Exact Same Thing and the NPS survived!! The NPS has set up refill stations but they do not mark them very well or let visitors know where they are.
I have been camping and visiting at least 40 National Parks for the past 40 years. I am appalled that plastic is not totally banned from the US. The National Parks are a vital part of America! Those of us who love them want them to never change. Yes unfortunately fires happen but let up preserve them bef its too late.
If you love our National Parks and America then it's time to make a huge change. Use bottles that are made of glass or stainless steel. The staibless steel ones are great as I have 2 that I have had for a least 10 years. I have refilled them more than I can count. Please stop using plastic. It's not good for the earth or us humans.
The water bottle ban was purely a symbolic gesture that had absolutely no effect on the supposed problems you identified. Meanwhile it inconvenienced park visitors, increased park expense, lost park revenues, and potentially put lives at risk. Lifting the ban was the rational thing to do.
"Rational". Not so subtle message is "anyone who doesn't agree with my minority opinion" is obviously not rational. Oh - and the insinuation that asking people to refill bottles rather than disposing of them puts their lives at risk.
Symbolic. Gesture. Absolutely no effect. Supposed problems. Try making a rational post without any of your slanted personal opinion words.
I have little doubt Buck that no one not already in agreement with your opinion is convinced by your partisan rants. I'm going ahead with my informed opinion that disposing of plastic waste is a problem and that minimizing it is helpful to humanity and the environment.
Rick, what percentage of the worlds plastic bottles are plastic water bottles sold in US National Parks? Answer - an infinitesesimal percent. That is not "slanted personal opinion" it is fact. Eliminating their sale (which probably caused a shift to buying more sugary soda - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-goldstein/national-parks-bottled...) had no positive impact - which is also fact. You are entitled to your opinion and while you may be informed it is obvious that your heart is driving it much more than your mind.
Every bit helps, and this program was exposing a lot of people to a growing problem, Earth becoming the plastic planet. Plastics don't biodegrade and stay in the environment. During my recent visit to Zion, I was glad to see so many people using the (free) water fill stations. Unfortunately, kurt is right. Politics rules, and this Administration's policies are heavily weighted towards corporate interests and against environmental protection.
First you implied support for the nazi's in Charlottesville. Now you imply that plastic waste is not a problem.
The only ones who believe you are those who came to earth on the same space ship.
I do a lot of hiking in the parks. Number one type of trash on the Trail by a mile is plastic water bottles.
No Rick, I never implied support for the Nazis in Charlottesville as much as your heart would like to believe that. And whether plastic waste is a problem or not (I believe not) the NPS ban had no impact on that problem. That is fact, which is why, like the typical progressive, you run to the Nazi accusation when the facts are against you. Oh, and by the way, did the editors at Huffington Post come from a space ship? They seem to agree with me.
Yeah. We all read what you wrote and how stongly you argued your side. Here's what Godwin himself said a little while back.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a56987/godwin-law-charlottesvi...
I don't know what your read, but I do know what I wrote; " I condemn the bigotry, hate and violence on both sides." Nothing there there that implies support of the Nazis. But that didn't stop you from invoking Godwin's law when the facts about the water bottle ban went so badly against you. The bottle ban was symbolic and had no beneficial consequences while introducing potential negative consequences. Those are the facts.
The internet is forever.
I am quite comfortable with my grandchildren seeing my position here, without explanation.
You will require a lot of your hair splitting explanations.
Those are the facts.
Now I'm going to go away and ignore you so you can trumpet how you chased me away. Sorry, Kurt.
I'm probably going to be chided for this again, but what the heck?
The issue we have with the way you stated your case is that it created a moral equivalence to both sides. "Yeah the white supremacists were bad, but these liberal Antifa guys were just as bad." I don't attribute their motives to any particular hate or bigotry. Possibly anger and and a lust for violence most definitely, but then again it looked like the white supremacists were itching for a fight to create a self-fulfilling wish. Or your odd concern with who did or didn't have a permit. It all read like a bunch of talking points off of Trump's various speeches.
As far as the bottle ban goes, I don't think it was strictly symbolic. However, it was a more complicated issue than simply reducing bottle waste in our national parks. I'd hope that even with the new administration that steps to encourage bringing reusable bottles and flexible water bladders would be encouraged, as well as continued installation of facilities to make it easier to fill reusable bottles. As I noted, it's a PITA to fill most bottles with a water fountain. I suspect the administration doesn't necessarily care much about concerns of proper hydration but care more about concessionaires and bottled water companies.
Yes, hatred, bigotry and violence is equally condemable no matter where it comes from.
Not my experience Az but even where true, where did those bottles originate? If you think the park, put a deposit on the bottles and you will have incentive to recycle and money to clean up from those that don't. If they didn't originate in the park, a park ban on sales will do nothing.
The bottle ban was an educational effort that attempted -- with quite a bit of success -- to TEACH park visitors about a very ugly and complex problem that impacts not only our parks but all of the world around us.
The winners in this are greed and environmental ignorance . . . again.
Some suggest that we ban the plastic bottle completely: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p058jgyr
Kurt, maybe having a separate comment page for ecbuck & RickB is in order. I do feel RickB comments are more substansive, but ecbuck is off the rails. REALLY, discussion is about plastic bottles in Americas National Parks and ec brings up world wide use of plastic to justify his opinion. He just likes to argue.
People come to this site to hear the latest about natinal parks. I am not interested in political views.
Just my feelings
I agree with Caldera. Buck is trollling and you can't argue constructively with a troll.
I loved Zion, no water bottles but you can go in a 4 star resturant and spend $40 on lunch. WAY to Hollywood for me. Yellowstone is going the same way. I have been to 41 of the 60 NPs. They seem to be going Hollywood. As in, we talk a good game, but I'm tired now and need pampered. Lets do lunch and discuss how green we are. Then they have a driver take them back to the hotel.
Last fall we hiked in a very nice natural state park in Arkansas called Petit Jean. The park was mostly built by the CCC and is very much like a minature national park. The hiking was very enjoyable, but unfortunately we nearly filled our daypacks with crushed water bottles and pop cans that we found along the trails. Apparently, when your done with a water bottle you drop it by the edge of the trail for the park personnel to pick up. It was very annoying and disrespectful of a beautiful well maintained park. I have a hard time understanding why an empty water bottle or can crushed is harder to carry out then a full one in.
"You get the behavior you select for." Garrett Hardin. In short, a simple ban on water bottles doesn't work. Bans never work, for that matter. At a traffic light, what works is a cop ready to give you a ticket. Sure. The cop may be there only one percent of the time. But no one dares take that chance.
Why are you dumping on EC? Perhaps because he is right? If you want to eliminate water bottles, keep raising the deposit until everyone starts turning them in. If 10 cents doesn't do it, make it 25 cents, 50 cents, or a dollar. You want people to bend over and pick up plastic bottles? First, you need to give them a real incentive to bend over, and further the incentive to carry them out.
Frankly, I no longer bend over even to pick up a quarter. I leave that for the kids. A dollar? Maybe a dollar, but not if it were in change scattered all over the ground. I have my principles, after all!
The real irony here is how many people find their "principles" in what is least effective for saving the parks. They drive SUVs, pickup trucks, and campers, for example, and then complain about a plastic bottle.
Please. Can we for once solve the problem? Again, I suggest we start with the car. Oh, no! Watch the purists howl! We would rather start with plastic bottles!
In that case, be ready to pay a $1 deposit, better yet, $2 if you want clean trails. I'm not jumping down the cliff for just ten cents. But yes, for $2 I might at least think about it. As for banning the car, how else will I get my bottles to the recycling center? And so we find another "perfect "argument for keeping cars and condemning bottles. Just don't think the argument means a thing.
Changing behavior (littering and/or trashing of plastic bottles rather than recycling) is unfortunately fairly difficult. I usually use a reusable bottle myself (because I'm thrifty) but I would definitely want the option of buying a single-use plastic bottle if I forgot mine, or needed one for a family member, etc. I am glad the refilling stations are being installed, but I also disagree with the previous ban. Use the bottled water revenue to support recycling and other sustainability efforts.
And as for all the anti-plastic rants, check out the life cycle analyses - metal and glass containers are generally worse for the environment because they are heavier and require more resources to produce and transport. And plastic bans usually just lead to folks littering some substitute product. Back to that human behavior thing...
Just a message to those involved in the mass email sent out to NPS Superintendents on this issue yesterday-The vast majority of us do not have this issue (no sales outlets in parks)-While most of us have at least some empathy towards the plastic bottle issue, clogging our in boxes with what was almost a denial of service attack was counter productive. Just in case some of you watch this site.
"metal and glass containers are generally worse for the environment"?
No way, not a chance. Tell that to an albatross then their chicks eat nothing but plastic, or maybe you are not an ocean fish eater, because plastic is now being found in fishes and bivalves from the ocean. Generally, metal and glass break down relatively quickly or are from natural materials, but plastic breaks down to tiny pieces that we and others end up injesting, and the results are not good.