On July 15, 2014, Pasadena’s Department of Public Works (PW) wrote me, stating that “the Zero Waste plan will include a Product and Disposal Ban initiative for environmental problematic materials. The first product the city will pursue a ban on is polystyrene take-out food containers due to its adverse environmental impacts. Once the Zero Waste Plan is adopted by City Council the city will pursue a local ban on polystyrene take-out food containers and cups, and support legislation on a statewide level.”
I am encouraged by this, but am asking PW to let me know why Polystyrene Foam Food Containers (PFFC) should not be decoupled from the city’s yet-to-be-adopted Zero Waste Pasadena 2040 plan (ZWP). My concern is that should the city (as is currently planned by the administration) hitch the fate of PFFC to ZWP, that strategy may be fraught with potential delays. Given the magnitude of industries and interest groups who will be pressuring Council on the much larger ZWP initiative, I am currently of the mind that hitching PFFC to ZWP may not be the best approach. The Environmental Advisory Commission has a PFFC subcommittee that will recommend a course of action at the EAC’s meeting scheduled for August 19. I recently learned from the Surfrider Foundation that 88 California jurisdictions (mainly cities and a few counties) have found the political will and rationale to pass PFFC ordinances. So has WDC, NYC (on a 51-0 vote), Chicago, Seattle, Portland and hundreds of other cities across the country. I think that the political will exists in Pasadena’s City Council to rebuff the predictable: the usual pleas for delay, entreaties, and scare tactics of the PFFC industry lobbyists. Strong leaders know how to stand up to libertarian arguments who (“just on principle, you know - government over-reach”) don't want to be told that restaurants will be required to purchase environmentally preferable products at a very low increased price.
My view is that if the city administration succeeds at convincing Pasadenans that a ZWP policy will be approved by the Council in 2014, and a PFFC ordinance will soon be enacted as a derivative, that should be sufficient cause to dial down the urgency of enacting a PFFC ordinance in the very near future. No one knows how quickly or smoothly ZWP might travel through the Council approval process. But the administration has the experience in processing ordinances for Council consideration. The administration could really help us by providing the necessary clarity so we can determine whether we need to mount a PFFC campaign that is decoupled from ZWP. I think that our City Council members would be very supportive of the administration strongly advocating for Council adoption of a ZWP policy in 2014, with a condition and expectation that the Council will follow up that ZWP policy by passing an ordinance banning PFFC – within a few short weeks. For those of you who are following this, I urge you to discuss this with your Council member and the city administration.