Author: alaskaadmin

This year, Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have eliminated the use of polystyrene, best known as Styrofoam, in Alaska. We are interns at Alaska Community Action on Toxics, a nonprofit focused on the impacts of toxic chemicals and plastics on people’s health, the environment and Indigenous ways of life. We are still fighting to end the use of polystyrene — and we are tired of empty promises from politicians like Dunleavy.

We represent young women, scientists and Native peoples. Our voices are often left out of the conversation, yet we have the most at stake. Repeatedly, older generations tell us: “Sorry for the mess we’ve left you.” However, change can only be accomplished through collective and intergenerational action, and we need all ages to help now.

ACAT’s Environmental Health and Justice Program Director Vi Waghiyi from Savoonga always says: “These are burdens we did not create.” Yet they will greatly interfere with our traditions, identities and abilities to live healthy lives. Our Executive Director, Pamela Miller, also published an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News about how senseless Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 25 was.

Now, Alaska is falling behind other states: twelve states already passed statewide legislation to eliminate polystyrene. California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado have banned polystyrene packing peanuts, coolers and other food service products. More than 250 U.S. cities and counties already banned or placed restrictions on polystyrene. Even McDonald’s eliminated its polystyrene packaging in 1990.

Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and a supporter of the vetoed bill, emphasized the popularity of such measures on the House floor: “Three-quarters of Americans are concerned about plastic foam litter. Over 70% of Americans would support a national ban on foam food ware.” Several local Alaskan businesses submitted letters of support throughout the session, and the bill had bipartisan support, but this support seems to be futile.

Polystyrene contains the chemical styrene, a probable human carcinogen. Styrene has been linked to impaired nervous system function, increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma cancers, vision and hearing loss, and poor memory and concentration. Chemicals from polystyrene can leach into food and beverages, especially when heated. For example, the heat and acidity in hot coffee trigger chemical leaching from polystyrene cups, then these chemicals are absorbed by the fat in milk or cream, which is easily ingested by humans. Multiple studies in the 1980s found styrene in 100% of the human fat tissues they sampled, and polystyrene production and use has only increased since then. Many Alaskans have likely already experienced health harms from this ubiquitous leaching.

Alaskans rely on land and water for livelihood, nourishment and culture. Nationally, roughly 63% of the commercial seafood harvest is from Alaska. But in the ocean, polystyrene breaks down into microplastics from exposure to sunlight, waves and wind. Studies have detected high levels of microplastics in Alaskan waters, harming wildlife, contaminating ecosystems and threatening the population viability of commercial and subsistence fish. Wildlife often mistake floating foam debris for prey, then eat polystyrene or feed it to their young. This fills their bellies with plastic, causing lack of hunger, starvation and permanent injury. 

Further, polystyrene is effectively not biodegradable: it takes hundreds of years to decompose, if it decomposes at all. High wind and wave action breaks foam blocks into tiny beads that are practically impossible to clean up. This foam travels through waterways, causing harm all over the globe. Over 10 years ago, polystyrene and related materials were found in 23 of 28 beaches sampled throughout the Gulf of Alaska; notably, no beaches were free from debris.  

Alternatives to polystyrene include reusable serviceware, recyclable packaging and compostable products. Materials such as paper, cardboard and plant-based plastics are now common substitutes, and these options are more sustainable for food service providers and consumers alike. Some businesses are voluntarily opting out of polystyrene: Green Alaska Solutions provides plant-based, compostable alternatives for restaurants, businesses and events statewide, including rural villages. Their business partners highlight higher customer satisfaction and loyalty, with up to 15% increases in repeat customers after switching to compostable packaging. 

ACAT and its partners will continue to work with policymakers on legislation to eliminate polystyrene in food packaging. Local businesses in Alaska would save money and avoid penalty fees by acting now to adopt alternatives in anticipation of a state or federal ban. The municipalities of Bethel, Cordova and Seward have already successfully enacted bans on polystyrene food containers. 

To avoid polystyrene in your daily life:

1. Bring an insulated metal mug for coffee instead of drinking from a hot foam cup — disposable lids are often also made of expanded polystyrene or other plastic. 
2. Bring a metal container to pack hot food leftovers into instead of polystyrene food containers from restaurants. 
3. Use shredded paper, perforated cardboard, or newspaper to pack items for shipping or moving instead of foam packing peanuts. 
4. When renovating or building a structure, choose a non-toxic insulation that does not contain polystyrene.

Our faith in public institutions depends on what those institutions do. 

As we watched this carefully considered, bipartisan bill get dismissed without any convincing public justification, we took away a discouraging message. Years of testimony, scientific evidence and legislative work can be set carelessly aside, even when the proposed solution is reasonable and beneficial. 

We do not want cynicism to be the lesson we take from this experience. We remember fishing, swimming and enjoying clear rivers and oceans free from plastic and pollution. We will continue to fight for these reforms so that our children will too.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Assembly members will discuss a request for proposals for Port Chilkoot Dock for the second time at the Aug. 11 Haines Borough Assembly meeting. And, the borough clerk’s report confirms that two citizen initiatives are making their way through town. The Chilkat Valley News’ Will Steinfeld joins KHNS reporter Melinda Munson.

Melinda Munson: Will, thanks for joining us. Let’s talk about what is on the agenda for Tuesday’s Haines Borough Assembly meeting. Let’s first talk about the cruise ship dock. 

Will Steinfeld: Where we left this last time was the borough manager and the assembly plan to write up a draft of what they call an RFD, a request for proposal for management of this dock. So the general idea was, we’re going to go put out this call for whatever private companies are out there who are interested in some sort of deal to lead this dock, manage the dock, whatever they can dream up. And then the borough would have the freedom to go through the proposals, see if any feel like good fits or good deals, and then proceed from there. 

And so we’re kind of at the same step in the process this week, except now there is actually a draft of this RFP document that the borough staff have drawn up. And Assembly are going to take a look at it and maybe approve it. They could go in any direction. I think they could approve it or edit it. 

It does give us new information about what this RFP process will look like. It’s really open ended as we heard last time, so it doesn’t really have strict guidelines about what the proposals need to look like exactly. It gives outside entities the freedom to offer what they want to offer. 

It does require specific information. If this RFP goes out and goes out as written, we’ll hear from companies about financial information, how they plan to handle specific aspects of managing the dock, like how they’re going to schedule shifts. So this is all stuff the boroughs ask for, and we’ll hear from assembly members if they think anything’s missing, or if they think the process isn’t right. And then maybe the RFP process will start after the meeting. 

Included in the document is the wording “ship scheduling.” Can you explain why that could be a little bit complicated in Haines? 

The whole idea of putting this dock out for management is complicated because there are companies that feel like there’s prior history, and they already have an interest in what’s happening here. It’s not just starting with a blank slate and asking people to come in and give their best offer. 

You mentioned the ship scheduling. That’s currently done by Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska. They don’t have a contract with the borough, but they do a lot of the management of the dock right now, including the ship scheduling. 

The borough retains ownership. The borough collects the fees. But Cruise Line Agencies provide some of the staff who coordinate logistics of landing at the facility. Also the infrastructure like fenders that are at this dock. So they made a point to come and talk to the borough staff when this whole Global Ports thing kicked off to say, ‘Hey, we already do a lot here.’ And Global Ports coming in, or now a different company that responds to this RFP could change things. 

Global Ports itself has said that they feel like they’ve already invested a lot into this process and had asked for some kind of return should the borough go out and open up this offer to other companies. And it doesn’t really seem like the borough has given them that – I hesitate to say special treatment –  but it sounded like they were asking for some kind of differential treatment in the RFP process. Asking for the ability to match any other company’s best offer.

So, you know, if other outside companies that haven’t been involved come in, they’ll be entering this kind of network of relationships that already exists surrounding this facility. 

Will, Haines residents can expect to see two petitions going around town, hoping to get enough signatures to be on the ballot. Tell us about those petitions. 

These petitions are going to need 279 signatures from registered voters to be on the ballot. If they’re on the ballot, then the voters will decide if they pass. 

The first is to repeal the seasonal sales tax that passed at last year’s election. So that’s the one that raises sales tax in town in the summer and lowers it in the winter – and exempts groceries in the winter. And if this gets on the ballot and then the voters approve it, it would just roll back the sales tax system to how it functioned before last year’s election. 

And then the second one is to lower the senior property tax exemption from $300,000 exempt property value to $200,000. The mayor, Tom Morphet,  wrote a letter in the Chilkat Valley News, a letter to the editor last week, making a case for this. And he says that the borough needs to collect more revenue for what he calls essential services. And he says this does that. It brings in more money, but it still maintains at least $200,000 of exemption for seniors.”

The post Listen: Assembly to discuss cruise dock deal, new initiatives headed to the ballot appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.