Author: alaskaadmin

The Alaska House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday banning restaurants from providing food in polystyrene foam containers.

Representative Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, introduced the bill to address what he called an “alarming problem” of plastic pollution.

Josephson cited a statistic from the ​Ocean Conservancy, an environmental advocacy nonprofit, that found polystyrene foam is found in 22% of food takeout containers in the U.S.

Polystyrene foam is a non-biodegradable plastic that is used to make insulated and disposable plates, cups and takeout containers. It contains chemicals that can be harmful when heated and contributes to environmental pollution. Styrofoam is a form of expanded polystyrene foam.

The Ocean Conservancy estimates that Americans use 5.6 billion pieces of plastic foam annually. 

“There’s enough foam produced every year to fill the Dallas Cowboys stadium five times. That’s what’s at issue here,” Josephson said.

If the bill makes it into law, Alaska will become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene containers. The Alaska municipalities of Bethel, Cordova and Seward enacted bans on polystyrene food containers.

The proposed restrictions would not apply to food prepared outside of Alaska or to areas affected by a disaster emergency. Restaurants would be able to apply to the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation for exemptions.

The bill would prohibit the state from using or purchasing polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and instructs the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to recommend that restaurants reuse food service ware instead of using disposable containers.

Green Alaska Solutions LLC, Alaska Community Action on Toxics and Oceana, an advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation, supported the bill.

Opponents of the bill included the Foodservice Packaging Institute, the Alaska Chamber, the Plastics Industry Association and the Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant, and Retailers Association, or CHARR.

Kati Capozzi, president and CEO of the Alaska Chamber, wrote that the bill would impose financial burdens on Alaska’s businesses and Sarah Oates Harlow, president and CEO of Alaska CHARR, said that the bill would decrease restaurant profit margins, with both expressing concerns that the bill would negatively impact small businesses.

“By requiring restaurants to use more expensive alternatives that may not perform as well—especially for hot or cold foods—this bill threatens to increase operating costs for businesses already struggling with narrow margins. The unintended consequence could be higher costs for consumers and additional strain on small businesses,” Capozzi stated in a letter to legislators.

The bill passed with 25 yes votes and 15 no votes in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River, said that he opposed the bill vehemently.

“This is using the power of government to force people to do things that the government believes are best for you…the government seldom knows best on these kinds of things.”

Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, supported the bill and spoke to its environmental impact.

“It (polystyrene foam) never goes away. It just breaks down into smaller and smaller and smaller particles and finds its way into our diverse ecosystem, primarily waterways.”

She also said that legislators should not only consider the cost of alternative disposable food service ware, but the cost of landfills and Alaskans’ health.

Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, voted in support of the bill and compared the ban to seat belt laws and the establishment of smoke free workplaces. She told legislators that the long term benefits to public health and the environment outweigh the short term costs.

Lawmakers’ efforts to expand the bill failed in a lengthy amendment process. There were attempts to ban paper straws, to ban polystyrene packaged outside the state, to allow municipalities to allow restaurants to provide prepared food in polystyrene foam disposable food service ware, and to create a telephone line to report violations.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

The state agency leading some of Alaska’s most polarizing development projects has approved a new communications budget, saying it needs to do a better job telling its own story amid attacks from critics.

The state-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority is run by a former chief of staff to Gov. Mike Dunleavy and is charged with promoting economic growth and expanding natural resource extraction and exports.

It is leading work to develop state-owned oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and also hopes to build two controversial new roads to access mining prospects in Northwest Alaska and outside of Anchorage.

Those projects have drawn sharp opposition from conservation organizations and other critics, including lawsuits, critical op-eds and campaigns that have labeled the agency “Bad AIDEA” and caricatured its leaders.

At a meeting in Ketchikan this month, board members, with no public discussion, authorized AIDEA’s staff to spend up to $700,000 a year on a new communications budget — formalizing a plan that the agency says was previously budgeted inconsistently through spending on individual projects.

The new communications plan, the agency said in its formal resolution authorizing the spending, will “ensure proper public engagement, transparency, and stewardship of the authority’s mission.” The money could go toward trade shows and conferences, responding to media inquiries and “other communications-related needs,” according to the resolution.

The agency’s executive director, Randy Ruaro, referred questions about the plan to Dave Stieren, an AIDEA employee who ran an advertising agency and hosted a conservative talk radio show before joining the Dunleavy administration.

Stieren said he could not provide exact figures on AIDEA’s past communications spending, but he acknowledged that the new plan should allow the agency to meaningfully boost its public profile.

The $700,000 a year, he added, is a limit, and the agency will set a final budget through a request for proposals process.

“Mothership AIDEA has done, frankly, little to nothing on a consistent basis to tell our story,” Stieren said in an email — particularly when it comes to its loan programs that have helped finance tourism and hospitality businesses, like the Alaska Club fitness chain and Anchorage’s Bear Tooth pizza restaurant and theater.

“We’re far more than roads,” Stieren said. “But since we’ve really not promoted or showcased our efforts in traditional finance areas, I understand the narrative or lack thereof that folks may have.”

Stieren has also personally defended AIDEA on social media, including over the weekend — when he posted a conservative news website’s positive story about an agency-owned shipyard and said that “when commie libs attack AIDEA, they attack projects like this.”

AIDEA’s board chair, Bill Kendig, declined to answer questions about approval of the new communications budget when reached by phone.

At the Ketchikan meeting, one AIDEA critic, Melis Coady, credited the agency with formalizing communications spending as a “step toward accountability.” But she said that the plan doesn’t “deliver the transparency it describes” because it gives Ruaro, the executive director, authority to approve communications spending, and only requires that he report it to the board if asked.

“The authorization is broad, the dollar amount is undefined, and expenditures are approved solely by the executive director,” said Coady, who leads a conservation group called the Susitna River Coalition.

Ruaro, in an email, said AIDEA will issue reports on communications to board members “whether requested or not.”

AIDEA’s board chair, Bill Kendig, declined to answer questions about approval of the new communications budget when reached by phone.

At the Ketchikan meeting, one AIDEA critic, Melis Coady, credited the agency with formalizing communications spending as a “step toward accountability.” But she said that the plan doesn’t “deliver the transparency it describes” because it gives Ruaro, the executive director, authority to approve communications spending, and only requires that he report it to the board if asked.

“The authorization is broad, the dollar amount is undefined, and expenditures are approved solely by the executive director,” said Coady, who leads a conservation group called the Susitna River Coalition.

Ruaro, in an email, said AIDEA will issue reports on communications to board members “whether requested or not.”

Reporting like this takes time and money. Northern Journal’s primary revenue source is contributions from readers. If you’re already a member, thank you. If not, we’d be grateful if you’d consider a voluntary subscription.

The post Alaska’s embattled economic development agency approves $700,000 PR budget appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.