10 states ask Biden for ‘aggressive' action on single-use plastic buying

A group of 10 state attorneys general is urging the Biden administration to set "realistic but aggressive" timelines to reduce government buying of single-use plastics, while industry groups are warning such a step could do more harm than good.

The back-and-forth comes as the General Services Administration, which writes the rules for government purchasing, is considering whether it should write new regulations to limit federal agencies from buying "unnecessary" single-use plastics like bags, containers and bottles.

The idea was first proposed to President Joe Biden in February by 180 environmental groups.

GSA followed up in July by formally announcing it would look at the idea, and thus far it seems to have gotten an earful.

A government website to collect input Sept. 8 said it received 22,500 comments on the proposal, and some groups began publicly releasing their recommendations after a Sept. 6 deadline set by GSA.

The attorneys general from California, Illinois and other states told GSA that changing packaging purchasing regulations for the federal government — essentially the world's largest buyer — could give a major push to companies developing alternatives to single-use plastics.

"GSA should set a realistic but aggressive deadline for phasing out the procurement of single-use plastic products," the states wrote in comments they released Sept. 6. "Phasing out these products will hasten the economic, environmental and health benefits of a nationwide reduction in plastics, protect front-line communities and reduce plastic pollution."

Plastics and other business groups are pushing back hard on idea, saying that plastics are better for the environment than many alternatives, when looked at across the product life cycle.

A group of plastics and other business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told GSA any federal action should be material neutral to avoid running afoul of other government procurement laws.

"If this proposal moves forward, it will run directly counter to the administration's environmental goals to reduce emissions," said Matt Seaholm, president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association. "This proposal would not only cost taxpayers millions and millions of dollars, it would force the use of products and materials that will have a much larger environmental footprint than the plastic products the administration would be looking to phase out."

There's no timeline on any GSA decision, and at this point the agency is only studying it and has not made a proposal of its own. It recently extended its comment deadline to Sept. 27, after some urged more time given the complexities.

The GSA action comes against a backdrop of other Biden administration decisions around plastics policy, including phasing out single-use plastics at national parks and public lands, as well as endorsing talks on a global plastics treaty at the United Nations.

A federal buying policy is needed because Washington has failed to act meaningfully to lessen the environmental harm from plastics, according to the 10 attorneys general, in comments joined by counterparts from Washington, D.C., and New York City.

They pointed to a low plastics recycling rate of about 6 percent and said the average U.S. resident throws away 110 pounds of single-use plastics a year, creating an environmental and litter cleanup burden on local governments.

In a detailed filing, they said California cities and towns pay nearly half a billion dollars a year to clean up litter, "most of which is plastic."

Washington state estimates it spends $165 million a year managing residential and commercial plastic packaging waste, and Massachusetts governments spend $44 million on managing plastics, which make up 11 percent of municipal solid waste, they said.

As well, the attorneys general argued that plastics production harms front-line communities, and pointed to Louisiana, where 150 petrochemical plants lead to a higher cancer risk for the "predominantly low-income and Black residents" nearby, the states said.

They said plastics manufacturing expansions, including a new Formosa Plastics facility in Louisiana and a large new resin complex from Shell Polymers in Pennsylvania, will increase pollution burdens on communities.

Specifically, the state agencies recommended GSA take a phased-in approach around government buying.

They urged GSA to work to eliminate unnecessary federal government purchases of single-use plastics by 2032, mirroring the approach the Department of the Interior has taken in national parks.

Toward that goal, they said GSA should set an interim target of having at least 50 percent of products purchased be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025, and 70 percent by 2028. The attorneys general pointed to much stronger action by other national governments, including in Canada.

"To date, the federal government has failed to meaningfully address the global plastics pollution crisis," they said. "We support GSA's development of rules to reduce and eventually eliminate procurement of single-use plastics as an important first step toward solving the nation's plastics pollution problem."

Industry groups warned GSA to step carefully, or risk steering purchasing toward alternatives they said would have a greater environmental impact.

The Plastics Industry Association, for example, pointed to a study from McKinsey & Co. that said a PET bottle is two times better than an aluminum can for greenhouse gas emissions and three times better than a glass bottle.

Similarly, the American Chemistry Council's plastics division said that study found plastics had a lower greenhouse gas emission profile compared with alternatives in 13 of 14 applications studied.

The plastics groups argued that limiting plastics purchases could further strain the economy.

"A proposal to restrict federal purchase of certain plastics, particularly in shipping and packaging, would send shockwaves up and down an already strained supply chain," the plastics association said. "If plastics are banned or limited, there will be detrimental impacts on consumers, businesses, the broader economy and the environment."

While the groups opposed GSA limiting plastic purchases, ACC suggested that the Biden administration and Washington should do much more to encourage use of recycled content.

ACC said the GSA should create purchasing preferences for recycled plastic, and it repeated its policy position that Congress should pass a law requiring 30 percent recycled content in plastic products by 2030.

"The GSA has a unique opportunity to be a leader in increasing access to plastics recycling and procuring products made from recycled plastics," ACC said. "GSA should set an example for other international, state and local governments, corporate office spaces and even consumers. Such a move would help lower government's GHG footprint, increase the use of recycled plastics in new products and avoid additional costs to government and taxpayers."

The plastics industry groups said GSA should take what's called a life cycle assessment approach to measuring the impact of plastics against other materials over the production, use and disposal of products, saying they felt it would show that plastics would mostly be the preferred material.

They pointed out that the Biden administration supports LCAs in other parts of its climate policy.

The other side in the debate, the attorneys general and environmental groups also supported LCAs.

But for them it meant more reusable packaging, and they urged the Biden administration to push federal buying in that direction, rather than only seeking replacement with single-use materials.

"Trading one single-use disposable product for another single-use disposable product made of different material may only create other problems," the attorneys general said. "Opting for the reusable alternative will likely have the best environmental benefits."

The Center for Biological Diversity, which was the lead filer on the February petition that started the GSA process, pointed to a 2021 study from the United Nations Environment Programme that said reusables generally have lower environmental impacts than single-use products, regardless of the material.

"Phasing out single-use plastic items should not mean substitution of plastic for other single-use products," CBD attorney Emily Jeffers wrote in a letter to GSA. "Instead, the GSA should prioritize reducing the consumption of all single-use products and packaging and transitioning to reusable and refillable products and packaging."

The groups made other policy recommendations.

The attorneys general urged GSA to specifically say that single-use plastics are allowed in critical medical and safety applications, including to accommodate people with disabilities, in disaster recovery and for personal protective gear.

And the state agencies said GSA should be cautious around having the government buy compostable plastics, arguing that there are false advertising claims around compostability and a lack of local infrastructure. They also said some compostables can have a higher environmental footprint than plastic packaging.

The group Oceana said that since 40 percent of plastic is used in single-use applications and packaging, GSA should act fast.

"As the single largest consumer of goods and services in the world, the U.S. government's purchasing choices can play a significant role in reducing plastic pollution and moving the economy away from unnecessary single-use plastic," said Christy Leavitt, the group's plastics campaign director.

In its submission, Oceana asked GSA to decide that each of the 9,300 people who signed on to one of its filings be considered as making separate public comments.