Washington, DC, has started charging shoppers 5 cents for every paper or plastic bag they carry away from stores and restaurants that sell food and/or alcohol--and any bags that DC businesses do give to their customers must now be recyclable. The measure, which took effect on January 1, 2010, is intended to make the nation's capital a greener city in two ways:

• First, by reducing the number of paper and plastic bags that end up in landfills or as litter in waterways or alongside roads.

• Second, by creating a source of revenue to finance the Anacostia River cleanup.

A 2008 study by the DC Department of the Environment found that plastic bags comprise 47 percent of the trash in the tributaries of the Anacostia River and 21 percent in the river itself.

DC businesses will keep a penny or two of the fee they charge for paper and plastic bags, and the rest will go to the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund. DC officials expect to raise about $3.6 million for river cleanup during the first year, but that amount could drop in subsequent years as more people switch to reusable bags for most of their shopping.

Bag manufacturers, who opposed the measure, claim the new fee will cost Washington families $5 million in 2010. But that assumes that DC shoppers continue to pack their groceries and other purchases home in 100 million disposable bags each year, instead of choosing to save money by switching to reusable bags. Looked at another way, the new fee provides an economic incentive for Washingtonians to eliminate the need for up to 100 million disposable bags every year.

Some large retailers in Washington, DC, also opposed the new fee when it was first proposed, but quickly came on board once the decision was made. Many retailers now display stickers that read, "Skip the Bag, Save the River," and chains such as Giant, CVS and Safeway are giving away free reusable bags to their customers to help ease the transition. The DC government is also distributing thousands of free reusable bags to seniors and low-income Washington residents. Some businesses are also offering a 5-cent credit to customers who bring their own bags, so shoppers can save the 5-cent fee and earn an additional 5 cents, just for carrying a reusable bag.

Washington, DC, isn't the first place to try phasing out disposable bags. San Francisco banned the use of plastic bags in 2008, as did China, while voters rejected Seattle's effort to impose a 20-cent per-bag fee in 2009. A year after China imposed its ban on the sale, use and production of plastic bags, Chinese officials reported that plastic bag use had dropped by two thirds (a reduction of 40 billion plastic bags compared to previous years) and the nation had saved the equivalent of 1.6 million tons of oil with no adverse effect on retail sales. And Ireland reduced plastic-bag use by 90 percent after it started charging a fee for disposable bags.

Also Read:

Starting today, Jan. 1, 2010, parents in Minnesota won't have to worry about baby bottles and sippy cups that contain bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial industrial chemical that is used in many household products and the linings of most food and beverage cans.

A growing number of research studies have raised serious concerns about the potential health effects of BPA, a powerful endocrine disruptor that mimics the hormone estrogen. Scientists are particularly concerned about the effects of BPA on fetuses, infants and young children, who frequently show higher concentrations of BPA than adults or adolescents and are more likely to be harmed by exposure to the chemical.

In May [2009], Minnesota became the first U.S. state to pass a ban on certain BPA-laden products intended for infants and young children, and today that ban went into effect. Four other states are currently considering bans on BPA, and two bills have been introduced in Congress--one in the House and one in the Senate--calling for a national ban on BPA in baby bottles and other products for children.

Meanwhile, industry has gotten out ahead of government on this issue. Most major baby bottle manufacturers, including Gerber, Playtex and Avent, responded to growing concerns among their customers and in early 2009 stopped using BPA in baby bottles they sell in the United States.

At about the same time, chemical and oil company Sunoco announced it would no longer sell BPA to companies that planned to use the chemical in food and water containers for children under age 3. Sunoco reportedly told investors it could no longer vouch for the safety of BPA when it was used in products such as baby bottles and sippy cups for children.

Read more...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration missed its third self-imposed deadline for issuing new consumer guidelines about the safety or potential health risks of using products made with bisphenol A (BPA), an industrial chemical that is used in thousands of everyday products--from baby bottles to the lining of most food and beverage cans.

On Tuesday, an FDA spokesman told reporters that the agency would not make a decision about BPA before the end of 2009, the new deadline the FDA had promised to meet when it missed an earlier November 30 deadline. After three strikes, the FDA declined to set a new deadline for the BPA decision and the spokesman refused to answer questions about the FDA review process or whether consumers should continue to assume BPA is safe for all uses or try to avoid BPA until the agency announces new guidelines.

Read more...

When the ball drops in Times Square at midnight tonight to ring in the new year, it will be the greenest New Year's Eve celebration in New York history, according to a CNN report.

The ball itself will be illuminated by more than 32,000 LED light bulbs, which are 20 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs, and will be 78 percent more energy efficient than the ball used in 2007. Each hour, the "green" ball used tonight will consume only about as much energy as two conventional home ovens. Meanwhile, the giant lighted numerals that will spell out 2010 are being delivered by pedi-cabs to save fuel, and many other efforts are being made to reduce the energy and environmental impacts of New Year's Eve in Times Square.

Much of the electricity needed for tonight's celebration is being supplied by volunteers peddling stationary bicycles hooked up to generators, which will reduce demand on the city's power supply and help the volunteers keep warm in the frigid New York evening.

Sure, there's an argument to be made that completely eliminating the lavish, televised celebration of New Year's Eve in Times Square--and other large and small celebrations worldwide--would do more to reduce energy consumption and protect the environment than simply implementing a few conservation measures. But that's unrealistic at best, and makes anyone who suggests it sound like a crank.

It might be more productive to see this approach as a symbol of a new era of conservation and efficiency, which may allow us all to live more responsibly and more sustainably, without making sacrifices so severe that they almost guarantee we won't be able to follow through on our good intentions.

Happy New Year.