Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/09/2019 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Community Service Block Grant Program, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development | |
| HB32 | |
| HB81 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 81-PROHIBIT PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS
8:33:48 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act prohibiting disposable plastic
shopping bags; and providing for an effective date."
8:34:30 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN opened public testimony on HB 81.
8:34:49 AM
MICHELLE PUTZ, Leader, Bags for Change, testified in support of
HB 81. She said plastics are getting into food and being
ingested by humans. The toxins in plastics affect the health
and reproductive systems of humans and could be affecting the
health of fish. She stated that plastics last forever in the
environment; plastic bags in particular litter communities and
"are very hard on ... marine life." She reported that 2 million
[plastic] bags are given away annually at [Sitka's] two grocery
stores alone and cost stores and consumers over $100,000 a year.
Ms. Putz said a poll was taken in Sitka asking whether single-
use plastic bags should be "banned, provided - but for a fee,
handed out for free, or 'no opinion.'" She relayed that over 70
percent of shoppers polled randomly at Sitka's grocery stores
agreed that something should be done - either banning the bags
or charging a fee for them. She relayed that in a more informal
poll on a more conservative site, 225 people were in support of
taking action regarding bags and 195 supported taking no action.
Ms. Putz said some argue that people recycle their plastic bags;
however, she countered that only 1 percent of "the bags" get
recycled, and it costs money to recycle.
8:37:15 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded that she finds it shocking that 2
million bags are being given away [annually] at Sitka's grocery
stores alone.
MS. PUTZ noted that was "a quick estimate" made by [the store
representatives].
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND estimated that amounts to 2,700 bags per
day/per store, if those stores operate 365 days a year.
8:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if Bags for Change has approached
the Sitka Assembly to ask for change as 17 communities in Alaska
have.
MS. PUTZ answered yes, the group brought the issue to the
assembly last year as an ordinance, which passed on first
reading. She explained that "opposition came forward";
therefore, Bags for Change asked the assembly to "back off last
year" and "put it on hold." This year the group is in the
process of doing a citizen ballot initiative and has just begun
gathering signatures to put a plastic bag ban on the ballot,
along with a fee on paper bags and a provision that would allow
the assembly to ticket stores that do not "follow the rule."
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if there is enough community
support in Sitka to "get this ban."
MS. PUTZ answered yes. She offered her perspective that support
[for a ban] seems to be growing in the community, and Bags for
Change is "ready to take on this challenge."
8:39:39 AM
SYDNEY PAULINO said she was representing herself and her mother,
who could not testify today. She stated support of HB 81. She
opined that "we owe it to our environment and our communities to
take this trash out of our oceans and off our beaches." She
stated one reason is that much of Alaska's revenue results from
the beauty of the state, and, if polluted, "it will no longer
have that kind of effect."
8:40:33 AM
LISBETH JACKSON noted that she had not seen a copy of the
proposed legislation but supports banning plastic bags across
Alaska. She said plastic bags are harmful. She offered her
understanding that HB 81 does not include a fee for plastic bag
use, and she said she would support such a fee. She noted that
single-use plastic bags under a certain mil weight have already
been banned in certain communities, and in spring considerably
fewer bags are littering environment. She said the communities
of Palmer and Wasilla "have taken the elimination of plastic
bags in stride," with many people bringing reusable bags to do
their shopping. She said this has a positive effect on
landfills, waterways, and the environment.
8:42:32 AM
MATT SEAHOLM, Executive Director, American Progressive Bag
Alliance, indicated that the alliance is involved with a variety
of packaging products, but his testimony would focus
specifically on the subject of plastic retail bags. He stated
his opposition to HB 81. He said the committee should have his
written testimony. Mr. Seaholm stated, "Any study that has ever
been done has shown, actually, either an uptick or no actual
discernible difference in the amount of waste or litter
generated in the location that has implemented a ban similar to
HB 81." He related a story done by National Public Radio (NPR)
that morning that highlighted the unintended consequences of a
proposal like [HB 81], including "the carbon footprint of the
alternative," such as an increase in garbage bag sales because
plastic bags are no longer being used for trash. He said the
alternative, which typically is paper, takes up more space in
landfills and is heavier and greater in volume in terms of
transport. He said the NPR piece also touches upon "the
assumption that cotton tote bags are better." He recommended
the committee look at that story. He stated, "We know these
policies are well-intentioned, but the fact is they really do
miss the mark on sustainability."
8:45:20 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked how many bags are actually recycled and
how many recycling centers are continuing to accept plastic
bags.
MS. SEAHOLM answered that there are a number of recyclers
throughout the U.S. that recycle plastic. He recollected the
last number he had seen was 1.2 billion pounds of plastic. He
indicated that 10-15 percent [is recycled], and while that may
seem like a low number, "the primary competitor to recycling for
us is actually re-use." He relayed that the recycling authority
of Quebec identified that 78 percent of plastic bags are reused,
predominately as trash can liners. Another recycling use of
plastic bags is turning them into composite lumber that is much
more durable than other lumber.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that in Alaska there are dozens of rural
communities that have no access to recycling centers, and it is
cost-prohibitive to return the plastic to an urban community
with recycling capabilities. She asked Mr. Seaholm how he
intends to reach out to these communities to help them to
recycle.
MS. SEAHOLM prefaced his answer by stating that recycling is not
the sole, end-life use for a plastic retail bag. He said there
is no doubt that plastic retain bags are "the best option at the
checkout counter." He mentioned environmental footprint, bags
from Asia made from nonwoven polypropylene, and cotton tote
bags, and he said, "Any of those have to be used so many times
that overall you're just not going to offset that single re-use
of [a] plastic retail bag." He clarified that even in areas
where there is no recycling "that one re-use [of a plastic bag]
still makes it the best option." He indicated that since Alaska
has no manufacturers of plastic or paper retail bags, the
plastic retail bag [weighs less] than the paper bags to ship to
the state.
8:49:45 AM
BRENDA DOLMA testified in support of HB 81. She said it was
legislation that would aid in the protection of Alaskans,
animals and waterways in the state, and visitors to the state -
not corporations. She related that [Homer] has "boomerang
bags," which are made from already existing materials, such as
t-shirts. She suggested other communities could consider using
similar bags. She noted more than 1.96 million tourists spend
thousands of dollars to visit Alaska and "don't want to see
'tundra tumbleweeds' floating around." She surmised that
tourists that come to fish would [care] about the impact of
plastics on water life. She indicated that [HB 81] would speak
for the wildlife that cannot speak for itself. Ms. Dolma said
Alaska has 8 national parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and 33,900
miles of coastline.
MS. DOLMA referred to language in HB 81, [Section 1, subsection
(b), paragraph (2), subparagraph (B), on page 2, lines 26-27],
which would include under the definition of "retail seller" a
retail establishment "that has annual gross sales of $250,000 or
more in the previous calendar year". She questioned whether
that would allow rural communities falling below that mark to
ban plastic bags.
8:51:58 AM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, on
behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 81,
responded that Ms. Dolma expressed a valid concern, and she
suggested the committee could look into amending the amount to a
smaller figure.
8:52:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 81, said the issue came up in the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee a year ago.
He said he would not take offense at any attempt by the
committee to lower that threshold.
8:52:58 AM
LISA NILSEN testified in support of HB 81. She said she has
been a retailer for over six years, and her shop does not use
single-use plastic bags. She said as a mother of five children,
she feels responsible for teaching them by example the many
options for transporting purchases. She said as a fisherman's
wife, she hears about the negative effect of single-use plastic
bags on ocean life. She indicated her husband has expressed
shock over the single-use plastic debris on the beaches. Ms.
Nilsen shared that she was born and raised in Kake, Alaska. She
said she is passionate about discontinuing single-use plastic
bags in Alaska. She noted that Northwestern and Coastal
indigenous communities in Alaska began banning single-use
plastic bags approximately 15 years ago. She said she believes
it is time for Southeast Alaska "to get onboard with everybody
else." She said she listened to [Mr. Seaholm] and she thinks
"they found their solution for their plastic bags in composite
lumber products." She opined that it is the right time to
pursue the goal of no longer using single-use plastic bags.
8:55:18 AM
JOHN HAVRILEK stated that he was testifying on behalf of himself
and his wife. He said he supports the ban of plastic bags. He
shared that he has been a resident of Alaska for 50 years and is
no stranger to pollution, having moved from Cleveland, Ohio,
where he witnessed the Cleveland River catch on fire. He said
he is proud that attempts are being made by the State of Alaska
to ban [single-use] plastic bags. He said he and his wife have
been using the same "recyclable bags" for 10 years now. He said
the most important thing is to keep the beaches clean. He
explained that he lives on the water along the Wrangell Narrows,
and he picks up plastic off the beach and out of the water
daily, so he would love "to see them disappear permanently."
8:56:55 AM
MARGI DASHEVSKI, Alaska Youth Environmental Association (AYEA),
testified in support of HB 81. She said there are dozens of
Alaska students across the state who, over the past year, have
lead campaigns to ban single-use plastic bags; they have
collected 766 petition signatures in support of a statewide ban.
She read the language of the petition, which extolled the
benefits of banning plastic bags statewide. She said she sees
the young adults she works with as visionaries for the next
generations. She echoed the testimony of Ms. Dowling that
banning plastic bags would be a strong step forward for Alaska.
8:58:53 AM
KENGO NAGAOKA testified in support of HB 81, which he called
common sense legislation. He noted that the Municipality of
Anchorage recently passed an ordinance related to a plastic bag
ban, and it would be taking effect soon. He said [banning
single-use plastic bags] is "a positive thing to do for our
environment and our water and our tourism." He said he is aware
many communities in the state have already instated such bans,
and he opined that it is time for the state to support those
communities. He expressed support for high school students
working on campaigns around the state to reduce use of single-
use plastic. He recognized Homer as addressing the issue soon.
Mr. opined that banning plastic bags is not enough; the state
must encourage alternatives and ensure those alternatives are
accessible to all Alaskans. He said in Anchorage, many
residents use [public] transit or walk to buy their groceries,
and he wants to make sure reusable bags are accessible and "the
paper alternatives don't have an excessive fee on them." He
encouraged the committee to think of "the equity components of
this proposition, as well." He thanked Representative Josephson
for sponsoring HB 81, and he encouraged those who may be "on the
fence" to take a closer look at the proposed legislation.
9:01:30 AM
SILVIA DAEUMICHEN testified in support of a plastic bag ban.
She said she works with a group of children ages 9-13, who are
worried about the adverse effects of plastic on the environment.
There are about 10 children in the group, and they call
themselves "Kids' Environmental Action." She said, "We feel
that humans need to take better care ... of our home planet and
of the animals, and banning the plastic bags would be a big
step." She said she does not use plastic bags; she lines her
trash can with newspaper, as she learned to do growing up in
East Germany. She encouraged less plastic use in general,
especially in Alaska where it is not very feasible to recycle
plastic. She opined that efforts should be made to transition
to the use of compostable plastic bags, which break down in the
landfills and do not release toxic chemicals. She said Kids for
Environmental Action have done some research. Regarding the
recycling of plastic bags, she mentioned a low rate of 5
percent. She stated that in Fairbanks "there is no way of
recycling." She noted that Kids for Environmental Action is
part of the Savings Planet Coalition; therefore, she reflected
that she could say she was speaking for hundreds of people who
would be in support of HB 81.
9:04:01 AM
ADAM HYKES testified in opposition to HB 81. He said he "loves
the environment" and picks up trash from the side of the road,
but he sees the issue as being "a people problem" not "a plastic
bag problem." He added, "This plastic didn't ... [make] a jail
break from the grocery store; people put them there." He
referred to the Prohibition on alcohol and "how that worked
out," and he indicated that any prohibition, although well-
intended, costs money to enforce. He opined that it is not job
of government to pay for [enforcing a ban] but is the
responsibility of citizens. He said the amazing organizations
he has heard about "should continue to do what they do," because
"this is a problem." He said he does not think the legislature
is considering the cost that would be involved with enforcing a
[single-use plastic bag] ban, including the punishment involved
if people ignore the ban. Mr. Hykes said he loves living in
Homer and Alaska, but restated his position that [the proposed]
ban is not the job of the government. He said he works in a
grocery store that uses a lot of plastic bags. If paper bags
had to be used, he indicated, the price of doing so would be
passed along to the customers. He said the state does not have
enough money currently to spend "on new laws" or "putting it on
the shoulders of citizens." He concluded, "So, as much as I
love this effort, I am not in support of this House bill."
9:06:22 AM
AMANDA SASSI testified in support of a statewide plastic bag
ban. She stated that single-use plastic is detrimental to the
environment, and Alaska's environment, in particular, is
sensitive. She opined that using less plastic would mean less
plastic in trees and waterways, which would ultimately keep
plastic out of animals that people could be eating. She
expressed appreciation for the effort being made [under HB 81]
and said she hopes "it is considered."
9:07:58 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), said he cannot speak for or against "the prohibition of
disposable plastic shopping bags," but he would speak to Article
10 of the Alaska State Constitution, regarding the maximization
of local self-government. He said, "When we do any statewide
preemption of local decision-making, we come back to local
control and really giving communities the opportunity to speak
for or against something ... of this nature." He opined that
"the comments from Sitka" were relevant, in terms of bringing
the ban issue before the community, addressing opposition, and
potentially changing the minds of community members through
public education, campaigning, and advocacy. He said he thinks
every community should have that opportunity. He said there are
ways to improve HB 81, including to give municipalities the
opportunity to opt in or out of s stateside decision. He said
AML would be interested in implementation grants, "to walk
through what implementation looks like at the local level." He
offered to work with the bill sponsor to assess local interest
and better understand the implications of HB 81. He
reemphasized AML's interest in local control and the
maximization of local government.
9:10:08 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked about the unorganized boroughs, for
which the legislature has the responsibility to act as assembly.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that to the extent the Alaska State
Legislature acts as the assembly for unorganized boroughs, it
can make decisions related to those boroughs; however, there are
165 incorporated cities and boroughs in Alaska, for whom the
legislature is not the assembly, and it is to those he is
speaking, because they have local decision-making in place.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND queried, "So then, it is our responsibility to
make those ... kinds of decisions for the unorganized borough,
and they're not in the purview of the [Alaska] Municipal
League?"
MR. ANDREASSEN replied, "For that borough, yes."
9:11:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Andreassen if he is
aware of any laws the legislature has passed that apply
exclusively to "the unorganized borough within Alaska."
MR. ANDREASSEN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed curiosity as to whether
the bill sponsor or anyone else on the committee is aware of
that.
9:11:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked [Representative Kreiss-Tomkins]
whether he was aware of any other laws the legislature had
passed in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS shook his head no.
9:12:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN mentioned that during debate on a recent
statewide smoking ban, consideration was made both to an "opt-
out" and "opt-in" clause. A statewide ban was enacted, but
communities could opt out. He noted that Sitka attempted to opt
out, but voters voted that down. In light of the concern
regarding unorganized boroughs, he asked Mr. Andreassen whether
he thought it would make more sense to offer an opt-in provision
rather than an opt-out provision.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that he thinks an opt-in provision would
maximize local control more than an opt-out option would. He
indicated that giving the decision to the community to make
would be positive. To the question of the unorganized boroughs
and decisions that could be made in their interest, he noted
that there are both home rule and first-class cities within
unorganized boroughs that make decisions on behalf of their
residents; therefore, it is not a clear-cut case that the
legislature could make decisions on behalf of unorganized
boroughs and not impact "the incorporated cities therein." He
suggested the legislature would want to "work with those cities
to really understand what that looks like." He said AML has had
some communication with unorganized boroughs, many of which have
expressed interest in strengthening communication with the
legislature by establishing a "feedback group" between the
borough and legislature. He said he thinks that is work that
can be done and for which AML could offer assistance.
9:15:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN closed public testimony on HB 81.
9:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, to the bill sponsor, said he has a
problem with the enforcement aspect of HB 81. He pointed out
that in reading the analysis on the back of the fiscal note, it
seems as though the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) has no interest in seeking out violations or conducting
any routine inspection. He said the proposed legislation would
throw more onto DEC when the department cannot keep up with its
current workload. He asked, "How are they going to enforce
this?"
9:16:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that "there
would be mostly compliance." For example, there would be
situations like that in Anchorage, where citizens overwhelmingly
passed the ban and allowed time for existing bag supplies to be
depleted. He predicted that people will know there is a ban and
will comply with it, and "they won't be ordering that inventory
anymore."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON opined that there are "so many holes" in
[HB 81]. He said packaging for bulk grains, fruits, nuts,
vegetables, bakery goods, "or other full food products" would be
excluded. He suggested that "other full food products" means
anything a person would buy in a grocery store. He expressed
confusion as to how the ban would actually be enforced. He
emphasized that he thinks local control is "a big part of this,
too."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, regarding the "other full food
products", said he thinks this means items that need "some sort
of container." He indicated that this language was designed to
provide "some ease for the customer." He stated, "The test of
the bill isn't absolute purity; it's improvement."
9:18:57 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK added that last year, when a previous version of
the proposed legislation was heard, a concern was "sanitation in
grocery stores." She explained, "It might be unsanitary to ...
have a meat product touching your fruit in your reusable bag."
She directed attention to statute, AS 04.16.120, mentioned in
bill language on page 2, line [5], and she noted there are
specifications regarding, for example, how an unfinished wine
bottle must be sealed in order for the consumer to take the
bottle home. She explained that the exceptions are created to
make things "safe" and "sanitary." Regarding local control, Ms.
Sorum-Birk said she does not have an answer but thinks that is
something that should be considered further. She said she
thinks "this would be very beneficial for the unorganized
borough," but she indicated the question should be asked as to
where a limit should be on local control when considering
benefits to the environment and to local communities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that while he respects the
concerns and interests of local authorities, it is typical that
the legislature passes legislation that makes impacts statewide.
Regarding the opt-out issue, he said he thinks that would
"invite a discussion statewide of this issue and would not be
offensive to the principals of the bill." He said he would
welcome an amendment to the bill to that effect. He said there
is a huge amount of support for HB 81 from across the state, and
he thinks environmental concerns and tourism concerns make this
a critical issue.
9:22:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated he found Representative
Thompson's remarks that plastic bags had been the answer to
paper bags at one point interesting. He said his research
brought him to a Scottish report - a full environmental
assessment report released in 2005 - and he asked if the bill
sponsor was familiar with the study.
9:23:24 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered no, but said she has looked at a
recently conducted Danish study, as well as a 2008 United
Kingdom Environmental Agency study.
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated that in the study "and four
others listed," in "almost every environmental issue," paper
bags were "far more ... negatively impacting to the environment
than the production of plastic bags." The one area in which the
study found plastic bags to be more detrimental was in "the risk
of litter." He listed some categories: primary energy
consumption, consumption of water, climate change, emission of
greenhouse gases, acid rain, atmospheric acidification, air
quality, ground-level ozone production, and solid waste
production. He asked why, if paper bag consumption is
considered far more detrimental to the environment, it is not
considered in HB 81.
9:24:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that in past reiterations of this
legislation, in former legislative sessions, there was language
proposing a fee for paper products. The paper industry pushed
back on that, he said. He emphasized that he would welcome such
an amendment. Notwithstanding that, he requested that committee
members ask themselves the following question: "Are we solving
plastics problems one bit at a time, starting with plastic bags,
or are we just pushing this off because it's unsolvable?" He
opined that to say that "this just won't work" without offering
an alternative "is no alternative at all." He said he stands
with Representative Revak's former boss, Senator Dan Sullivan,
who has expressed concern about "ocean plastics."
Representative Josephson exclaimed, "I am tired of reading about
whales opened up with 50 pounds of plastic inside them. This is
not a sustainable future, and this is a place where we can
intervene."
9:26:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON noted 24 communities were "listed." She
said she is an advocate for local accountability. She asked how
many businesses in Alaska are "affected with plastic bags" in
producing or where "that is their business."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he thinks "no one does
that." He recollected there had been testimony to that effect
previously.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON suggested people concerned can start
cleaning up plastic bags. She indicated that plastic bag use
had come about because of environmental studies done regarding
cutting down trees [to produce paper bags]. She said it seems
like "an endless circle ... for us as a state to take the time
to mandate what people use and what people don't use." She
questioned how the law would be enforced.
9:28:47 AM
MS. SORUM-BIRK said there are studies that show it takes more
energy to produce a paper bag and a lot more to produce a cloth
bag. However, each of those studies misses a key point, which
is the environmental impact of the litter on the marine
environment and how single-use plastics impact the marine
ecosystem and resources.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said if she uses a cotton bag to go food
shopping, there would be germs accumulating in the bag that she
would have to use water and electricity to eliminate.
9:30:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed appreciation to the
sponsor and testifiers. He said there are two goals in HB 81:
[reduction of] litter and reduction of resource expenditure. He
focused on the latter. Per Representatives Revak's questions
and the studies mentioned by Ms. Sorum-Birk, he asked, "You
accept the conclusion of resource consumption expenditure for
plastic bags versus alternatives, such as paper, or, if you
don't, what do you dispute about those studies?"
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Ms. Sorum-Birk, but noted
that someone today had testified that he/she has used the same
bags for a decade. He added that when someone calls in from the
American Plastics Progressive Alliance, he has to question that
person's motivation.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said she somewhat agrees with the analyses done
on energy expenditure needed, but what they are not considering
is whether the materials are a renewable or nonrenewable
resource. She said plastics are made from a nonrenewable
resource, which could be an issue in the future. She relayed
that Americans use approximately 100 billion plastic bags per
year, which requires about 12 million barrels of oil to
manufacture. She said, "It only takes about 14 plastic bags for
the equivalent of gas to run one mile." Regarding carbon
footprint, she said it is true that polyethylene requires low
energy to produce, is cheap and cost-effective, and is
recyclable; however, [only] "about 1 percent of bags throughout
the U.S. are recycled." She said the issue of carbon footprint
is real and so is the issue of how many times people reuse a
product, but that is true for any product, whether it be
plastic, paper, or canvas.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the studies are not
exclusively from the industry, but the study mentioned by
Representative Revak and "other lifecycle analyses" are often
from pro-environment governments considering resource
consumption impact. He said that is one side. The other is
litter reduction. He said he picks up trash along the road and
off the beach, so he feels "engaged in the question." He
observed that the assumption seems to be that the elimination of
single-use disposable plastic bag use will decrease the amount
of plastic pollution. He said he has not seen that relation and
wonders "how that cause and effect assumption is substantiated."
MS. SORUM-BIRK responded that she had looked for data showing
what percentage of debris in the marine environment was plastic.
She said she could not find data on the North Pacific, but a
European study of 2016 showed that about 7 percent of marine
debris was plastic bags.
9:37:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said part of what the legislature
considers daily is the question of what has political viability.
He noted that there is statewide momentum - even from the
conservative areas of Wasilla, Palmer, and Soldotna - to ban
[single-use] plastic bans. He suggested one reason may be "the
visual insult" of plastic in an otherwise pristine wilderness.
He stated concern that if focus is given to the issue being only
a small percent of the total problem, then it will be "easy to
retreat from the issue." He suggested that trying to expand the
bill to include other forms of plastic in the ban "could do
jeopardy to what life the bill has." He emphasized that 18
diverse communities have said they want the ban, and he is
"honoring their efforts."
9:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REVAK asked if the bill sponsor had considered an
exemption for biodegradable plastics.
MS. SORUM-BIRK answered that the issue with biodegradable
plastics in Alaska is that they take a certain amount of heat to
biodegrade in a special industrial level composting facility, of
which she speculated there may be one in all Alaska, in
Anchorage. She said she has tried to compost biodegradable
plastics, and it takes "a very hot compost for that to work" -
ideally at the industrial level.
9:39:31 AM
CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 81 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSBG Opening Comments 4-9-2019.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Rural Cap Testimony on CSBG.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| CSBG Presentation.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| FFY19 CSBG State Plan.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| FY17 CSBG FactSheets_AK.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 81 Opposition Letters.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
HB 81 |
| HB 81 Support Letters.pdf |
HCRA 4/9/2019 8:00:00 AM |
HB 81 |