Faith leaders urge Assembly to pass packaging reduction bill

On the heels of the state Senate once again passing legislation aimed at reducing packaging waste in New York, environmental advocates are sending a letter to members of the Assembly signed by over 100 faith leaders urging them to make the measure law. Although the bill has gained momentum and support over the past two years, it still faces strong opposition from the plastics industry and business leaders, who have upped their lobbying over the past several months. The plastics lobby is pushing an alternative bill that has picked up a number of co-sponsors in the Assembly, and the new letter from faith leaders takes direct aim at the lobbying around that bill. 

A total of 125 faith leaders from a range of religions signed the letter asking for action on the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act. The bill would require businesses making over $5 million to reduce plastic packaging by 30% over 12 years and would ban over a dozen toxic chemicals from being used in packaging. It would also create an extended producer responsibility program to encourage plastic reduction, promote recycling measures and have those large businesses pay fees to municipalities to help pay for recycling efforts. “As faith leaders, we are called to protect the most vulnerable among us, and the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act is a crucial step toward achieving a healthier, more just future for our children, our communities, and our state,” the letter reads.

While the measure has a large amount of support from advocates, local leaders and others, the plastics industry and business interests in the state have spent heavily to ensure it doesn’t become law. The letter takes aim at those recent lobbying efforts. “The corporate narrative being spread by the (American Chemistry Council) is not only false; it is also deeply insulting,” the letter reads, referencing a major plastics lobbying group. “It claims that the bill will make consumer products unaffordable and unavailable. This is a lie, pure and simple.”

Supporters of the bill cite the consumer advocacy group Consumer Reports, which notes that “there is no evidence that consumer prices go up as a result of an EPR policy” in a memo on the bill. That memo references a study from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on the EPR law in Canada, as well as evidence from Europe, which has had similar laws on the books for over three decades. A study from Columbia University concluded that adopting EPR legislation would at most cost households $4 extra per month.

Opponents of the New York legislation sponsored by state Sen. Peter Harckham and Assembly Member Deborah Glick point out that it’s more aggressive than similar laws in other states. Ken Pokalsky, vice president of the Business Council of New York State used California as an example. The state passed an expansive – though still less so than New York’s – EPR law that required regulations by earlier this year. That process got delayed when the state estimated it would cost over $35 billion over 10 years. “It's widely expected that the most significant impact is going to be on lower income households,” Pokalsky said. “I'm curious how that aligns with your faith-based folks’ vision of how the world should work.”

The Business Council also commissioned a study from York University, which Republicans cited during the state Senate floor debate on Wednesday, that concluded the legislation would cost the state over $1 billion annually and increase the average household grocery bill by at least $36 per month. Harckham rejected the findings, arguing that York University has been “actually wildly off” in other studies it has done on Canada’s EPR laws.

For the first time this year, a business-backed, scaled-down alternative to Harckham and Glick’s bill was introduced. It has picked up nearly a dozen co-sponsors in the Assembly, many of whom belong to the powerful Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus. While Pokalsky said this alternative would create an EPR law more similar to those already enacted elsewhere, advocates argue that it would fail to achieve the goals they want to reach. “The tactics by which they are going to get a favorable bill for their interests are, frankly, despicable, and targeting communities that our bill is meant to benefit is wrong,” said Rev. Kathryn Beilke, who helped to organize the faith leader letter for the group Beyond Plastics. “And so the faith voice really lifts up the moral aspect of this fight in New York.”

The state Senate passed the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act on Wednesday with a vote of 33-25. A handful of Democrats voted against it. Although Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie has indicated that it will come to the floor in his chamber, Glick said she is not taking anything for granted. “We are working assiduously,” she said. “I believe, based on what people tell me today, that I have the votes, but I've had to hold some people back before.”