The National Park Service should work to reduce plastics pollution, not take a hands-off approach/Kurt Repanshek file
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.
Comments
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...