in february 2021, while gw classes were held remotely due to covid-19, the university implemented a policy to eliminate single-use plastics on gw property. the policy guide states university affiliates should refrain from using university funds to purchase single-use plastics for which there are available alternatives.

the switch to reusable water bottles saves an average of 156 water bottles per person in the united states per year, according to earthday. the market for reusable water bottles was valued at 8.38 billion usd in 2020, according to grand view research, and is expected to grow in years to come.

the increase in popularity can inspire students to find stickers to encapsulate their personality, leading every water bottle to look different from the next. this act of personalization allows students to take ownership of their collective step towards more sustainable living.

liam macdermott, a senior at george washington university, said the personalized element to water bottles encourages students to make the switch. i asked him if he has seen a visual change on the gw campus since the plastics ban. 

“i have definitely seen a concerted effort to use recyclable or sustainable utensils in gw restaurants,” he said. “that was not happening my freshman year.” 

as a senior, macdermott’s perspective on the plastics ban is quite different than most; around half of the undergraduate students on gw’s campus this fall had not taken an in-person class prior to this semester, due to the switch to remote learning during the pandemic, and so have no reference point for the visible changes the university has made.

paige valego, a junior at gw who was on campus for a semester and a half prior to the single-use plastics ban, said she hadn’t seen many plastic changes on campus, though she may have noticed a change more significantly if the campus had a traditional dining hall.

indeed, gw’s dining plan poses a challenge in regard to the ban on single-use plastics. the university lacks a traditional dining hall on its main campus in foggy bottom and utilizes a “dining partner network” through which students use gw dining dollars at independent restaurants, grocery stores, and food trucks on campus. the university’s plastic elimination plan acknowledged the campus dining partners, and stated that the university will collaborate and encourage dining partners on or near campus to offer alternatives to single-use plastics.  

vallego explains that in efforts to live more sustainably on campus, she carries around a reusable water bottle and participates in sustainable gw’s student-led composting program. 

violet radmacher-willis, a sophomore, arrived on campus for the first time this fall. she finds being environmentally conscious at gw more complicated than at home in oregon, where she said an effort to live sustainably is common. she said that although using a reusable water bottle is probably the most popular environmentally-friendly effort shared by students, it is challenging to find refill stations. 

according to kimberly williams, interim senior associate at gw’s office of sustainability, the university aims to install refill stations in every residence hall and academic building. currently, there are 67 water bottle filling stations around campus. williams noted that she understands the lack of resources makes it hard to participate in this sustainable culture shift, so is hopeful that the investment in resources that the university is making is helpful to make that culture shift happen quickly and broadly.

radmacher-willis echoed this sentiment, saying, “i have hope that, because people are becoming more aware of the benefits of reusable material, that both gw and members of the community will turn to more sustainable practices.”

it takes an estimated 450 years for a simple object, like a plastic water bottle, to decompose. now imagine all the plastic in your starbucks cup, lid, takeout box from your local cafe, and the utensils. uh oh. 

in place of that, here’s three ways to enjoy breaking-your-fast while being environmentally friendly.

1. bring your coffee cup with you

an estimated 16 billion single-use coffee cups go to waste every year, but there’s no need to keep contributing to that. although stores like starbucks and whole foods stopped allowing the use of personal cups for pandemic sanitation reasons, peet’s coffee has reinstated the practice. 

stylish cups are more fun… but be sure to pick a durable one that isn’t also made of plastic. the typical reusable cup must be re-used an estimated 20-100 times to be worth the energy used to make it in the place of a disposable cup, so be sure to get one that you will love for years to come! options like the frank green cup ($29.95 for the 12 oz) that is made of recycled material and can be recycled (and only needs to be used 15 times according to the brand’s website). you can also try a huskee cup ($22 for travel cup) that is made from “coffee husks” (a waste material produced in coffee production) and has a nice minimalist aesthetic.

2. make tea at home

not a fan of lugging around a reusable cup? not a coffee-lover? if you want to try a tea that’s good for you and the planet, swap out those staples and extra material-using tea bags for loose tea! when you buy big-brand tea bags you’re throwing away the pointless bags and potentially ingesting microplastics. a recent study by researchers at mcgill university found that steeping a single plastic tea bag at brewing temperature releases about 11.6 billion minuscule particles known as “microplastics” and 3.1 billion even smaller “nanoplastics” into each cup. microplastics are each around as thick as a human hair, and each nanoplastic is about 1,000 times smaller, so you cannot see them even as you gulp them down.

there are microplastic-free options, though! arbor tea is a brand that sells loose-leaf tea enclosed in compostable packaging. so, you can compost the tea leaves and package with no waste and not have to swallow the microplastics that come from a tea bag! arbor teas also has a solar-powered packaging facility and transports packages by truck and sea freight to avoid shipping by plane to lower carbon emissions.

suspicious of greenwashing? the arbor teas backyard compostable packaging was awarded the gold award in sustainability by the flexible packaging association in march of 2021. if you want to try other brands, make sure to check out the ethical consumer rating site which ranks companies that you should order from and others that you should really stop buying from, like lipton and twinings. 

3. make a plastic-free meal from home

there’s something so fulfilling about a breakfast that you get to make yourself (an accomplishment before noon?). according to a recent study by science advances, over 40% of all demand for plastic is generated by single-use plastic products, which often end up in toxic landfills. if you don’t want to add to that, stop opening little plastic packages of pop-tarts  and go for that classic veggie omelet! not only is it healthier for you, but you can avoid creating waste by choosing cardboard cartons for eggs and bringing your own mesh bag to your grocery store or farmer’s market for the vegetables, instead of using a plastic produce bag. the cotton bags from package free shop are a nice choice.

if you’re more rushed and feeling some toast, you can bring your own bag to a local bakery, even chain ones like tatte, and buy a loaf there. stores like whole foods also offer a “bulk section” that includes an option to bring your own jar for some delicious nut butter as your topping. more sustainable, natural, and delicious!

––

it’s fun and simple to cut back on plastic early in the day; it could inspire you to spend the rest of your day waste-avoidant, too. shopping with ethical brands and encouraging earth-friendly business practices can be a great way to use your consumer power. how about that as a morning burst of energy?

more are likely to follow—and with good reason.

in the u.s. alone more than 100 billion plastic bags are used each year. these bags take centuries to degrade and remain toxic long after, polluting waterways, oceans and cities.

still, there’s plenty of confusion and debate around plastic bans on both the political and practical level. it’s easy to get lost in the logistics of it all—but, at the heart of it, there’s one question: 

are bag laws effective?

plastic bag bans are often regarded as a low-hanging fruit in the grand scheme of plastic waste. everyone has seen plastic bags rolling across the street, caught in trees or floating in rivers. given that it is such a visible form of pollution, it is an easy target for plastic policies; and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

as mark murray, executive director of californians against waste, explained, it is exactly this visibility which makes banning bags a powerful symbol against plastic pollution.

“i’m not going to pretend that banning single-use plastic bags is going to be a major reduction in plastic pollution, but the fact that they are so visible is part of the reason to target them,” murray said. “it’s easy for people to grasp that this is a wasteful product and it’s also pretty easy for people to see that there are alternatives.”

another advantage is that implementing bag laws can serve as a gateway to other plastic policies down the road. the district of columbia for instance, was a front-runner to the bag ban bandwagon, imposing a five-cent fee on all plastic and paper bags back in 2009. since this law was passed, the washington, d.c., government has been at the forefront of other plastic initiatives, becoming the second major u.s. city to ban single-use plastic straws in businesses and organizations selling or serving food or drinks.

lillian power, environmental protection specialist in district’s department of energy and environment (doee), said that implementing these additional policies has been easier thanks to the initial bag tax. 

“it really prepared a baseline as something to build off of, which has really helped us in our outreach campaigns for all these expanded regulations and requirements,” she said. “what it did was prepare these businesses for upcoming future changes and really realize that this is not the end of the line, it is just the beginning,” 

untangling the web

keeping track of different bag bans and taxes can be confusing. as discussed, washington, d.c., has a tax on both paper and plastic bags. in contrast, california passed a ban on single-use paper and plastic bags and began requiring stores to sell reusable grocery bags or recycled paper bags at a minimum of 10-cents per bag. meanwhile, new york state has a ban on plastic bags and a five-cent fee on paper bags. unlike washington, d.c., the money does not go directly to the government and subsequent plastic clean-up programs. the five cent charge is a fee, not a tax, so the proceeds go directly to the businesses instead. all of these regulations can be even more varied on the local and municipal level. 

the fact of the matter is that there isn’t a one-size fits all approach to bag laws. each type has its own advantages and disadvantages––and having a variety of structures to choose from means states and cities can choose a method that best suits their needs.

an outright ban can be a sweeping change with a powerful message, but it can also be difficult to implement in the face of plastic bag lobbyists and manufacturers who may be inclined to sue. enforcement also becomes an issue when a ban is implemented on a state-wide scale. 

a tax, on the other hand, might seem like a half-measure—but it is actually extremely effective at changing consumer behavior by making customers more mindful about their bag usage. the money collected from the tax can also be used for plastic cleanup as illustrated in washington, d.c., where revenue from the tax is put into a fund to clean up the local anacostia river, as well as purchase and distribute reusable bags to low-income and eldery populations in the district. 

murray noted that ultimately both bans and taxes are successful at reducing plastic bag use because it causes the consumer to consider their own bag usage with every purchase. 

“i think that having that charge upfront whether it’s in the form of a d.c. bag tax or in the form of having to buy a reusable bag … is causing people to reduce the number of bags that they generate,” he said. “both you and the checker at the store are conscious of the fact that these aren’t freebies. there’s no such thing as a free bag, it was never a free bag.”

these assertions are backed by numerous studies. in california, a report by calrecycle, a department within california’s environmental protection agency, found that six months after the ban was implemented, 86% of customers brought their own reusable bag or opted for no bag. consequently, there was an 85% reduction in the amount of plastic bags grocery stores provided to customers. washington, d.c.’s 5-cent charge has led to a 60% drop in overall single-use bags and significant reduction in plastic bags found in the anacostia river. thanks to the tax, the bag law has generated more than $19 million in revenue to use toward cleanup and education efforts over the past decade.

tips for success

in the wake of bag law successes in places like california and washington, d.c., many states and cities are eager to implement their own practices. however, gaining support for such a movement can be a daunting political challenge. 

tommy wells, director of d.c.’s department of energy and environment and the creator of washington, d.c.’s bag tax shared his advice on making people more accepting of bag laws.

wells explained that when he was first considering implementing the tax, businesses feared customers would become angry with them and assume the tax was another way to make money. as a result, wells implemented an extensive educational campaign to ensure people knew the tax was the government’s doing.

“we put ‘skip the bag, save the river’ stickers all over the bus and stores and we made it clear to everyone that the government was doing this,” he said. “people just get it now. it’s part of living here. some people will still grumble but there’s not enough out there for any politicians to say they would repeal it.”

powers added, “it does require really deliberate action on getting the word out … (the stickers) are one of those eloquently simple solutions where the cashiers are just pointing to the stickers and saying ‘call the doee, it’s not our fault.’”

the statistics back this claim with a survey commissioned by the doee showing 83% of dc residents and 90% of d.c. businesses support the bag law or are neutral towards it.

looking back at his work advocating for the legislation of california’s single-use bag ban, murray recommended gaining support and implementing laws on a local level. california was the first state with a uniform state-wide plastic bag reduction law, but that all began with cities like san jose and san francisco first implementing their own local laws to significant success. san francisco, in fact, was the first major us city to ban single-use plastics.

in terms of tangible steps, murray suggested reaching out to a local recycling coordinator, who can be an ally and resource for further political action.

“every community typically has a local recycling coordinator or a staff person for the city or county that works on these issues, whose task is to reduce waste and increase recycling,” he said. “not only can they help in terms of giving you a little bit of history, like if anyone tried this before, but they can also tell you who are the champions on the city council or on the board of supervisors…” 

murray said californians against waste employed this exact technique during their efforts to pass the single-use carryout bag ban. now as the organization looks to expand the scope of the ban––extending the policy beyond single-use plastics and beyond non-food retailers––they have continued efforts at the local level and remained in contact with recycling coordinators.

the future of plastic

when it comes to continued action after plastic bag bans, there are many routes to choose from. as californians against waste has demonstrated, one option is to expand upon bag law requirements, such as petitioning for a plastic ban beyond just single-use. another option is to ban other types of plastic, like washington, d.c., did with single-use straws. 

however, an increasingly important focus in the bag ban debate is the idea of “extended producer responsibility,” or epr for short. while most of the existing bag laws seek to change existing consumer behavior, epr legislation seeks to stop plastic waste at its source by taxing the producers of the plastic bags in the first place.

while this is certainly harder to implement in the face of huge plastic bag companies and lobbyists, this type of taxation requires plastic manufacturers to take responsibility for their actions, meaning at the end of the day, the polluter is the one that pays.

as jackie nuñez, program advocacy manager for the plastic pollution coalition, explained, advocating for this type of legislation is necessary because big companies will not reduce waste by their own accord.

“there is a place for it because historically time and again businesses won’t self-regulate themselves,” she said. “they need those parameters, you need those boundaries … the people who make this stuff should be responsible for it in life.”

while the task may seem intimidating, powers insisted this could be done from the local side.

“you just need to get resident support and you gotta pass the laws,” she said. “you’re not going to get these behemoths of industry to make these changes on a closed time scale unless they are 100% forced to.”

this is easier said than done, but epr laws are gaining traction in the u.s. in july of this year, maine became the first state in the u.s. to pass an epr packaging law requiring big corporations and manufactures to pay for a portion of the recycling costs of the packaging material (typically plastic) that they put into the market. oregon followed suit with a similar law in august. 

it hasn’t been so easy in california, where murray said californians against waste has been trying to implement epr laws for years, with little success. he added that while epr might be the right policy to implement, it’s not necessarily the easiest.

“sometimes the ban is the easier policy for policy makers in the public to wrap their arms around and understand,” he said. “we don’t always get to do the best thing when we’re advocating these policies.”

despite the hurdles, murray remains optimistic as more people become open to bag laws.

“at the beginning … we would pass one or two of these policies every few years and now policymakers are really seeking us out and seeking out these policies,” he said. “really, for the first time we talk about circular economy and producer responsibility and they know what we’re talking about … i feel like policymakers are getting it.”

––

editor’s note: this story is part of the planet forward series “so long, single-use?” check back over the next several weeks for more stories about how communities and individuals can––and are––reducing single-use plastic waste.