May, 17 2021, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Mandy Apa, Environment Washington Campaign Associate, (206) 657-6283, aapa@environmentwashington.org
Alex Truelove, U.S. PIRG Zero Waste Director, (215) 630-7250, atruelove@pirg.org
Mark Morgenstein, Director of Media Relations. (678) 427-1671, markm@publicinterestnetwork.org
Gov. Inslee Signs Far-Reaching Plastic Pollution Bill
Legislation includes ban on single-use plastic foam.
WASHINGTON
With the backdrop of the Seattle Aquarium, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill Monday to both ban many kinds of polystyrene -- commonly referred to as "Styrofoam" -- food containers and increase recycled content in packaging. Washington becomes the seventh state in the country to ban polystyrene foam takeout containers and it will become the fourth state, following New York, New Jersey and Virginia, to pass a polystyrene foam ban in the last 14 months.
The bill goes beyond other states' policies by banning foam peanuts and coolers in addition to foodware. It also requires businesses to provide single-use utensils, cups, lids and condiments only upon customer request; and ensures that trash bags, plastic beverage bottles and household cleaning and personal care bottles contain minimum levels of post-consumer recycled content.
Prior to the vote, U.S. PIRG and Environment America's state partner Environment Washington educated thousands of Washingtonians about plastic pollution and polystyrene, generating more than 100 activist phone calls to state legislators and signing on 90 restaurants to support a ban on polystyrene in the last few months.
In response, Alex Truelove, U.S. PIRG Zero Waste Program director, and Mandy Apa, campaign associate for Environment Washington, issued the following statements:
"Polystyrene foam containers are among the most common, harmful and non-recyclable plastic products on the market," said Truelove. "Getting rid of foam and requiring other polluting products upon request will encourage less waste and more reuse. Washington's landmark law sets new commonsense standards for other states to emulate."
Apa added, "Washington's ocean habitats, waterways and wildlife are among our state's most important treasures. By taking action to stop the overflow of these harmful, single-use products, our leaders have chosen to put the planet over plastic. Nothing we use for five minutes should pollute the earth for generations to come."
With Environment America, you protect the places that all of us love and promote core environmental values, such as clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean energy to power our lives. We're a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state. Together, we focus on timely, targeted action that wins tangible improvements in the quality of our environment and our lives.
(303) 801-0581LATEST NEWS
NYT Runs Hit Piece on Mamdani Based on Tip From Proponent of 'Race Science'
Reports from multiple outlets show the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race.
Jul 04, 2025
The New York Times on Thursday published a story questioning New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's past statements about his racial background based on a tip it received from a proponent of "race science."
The Times piece in question focused on Mamdani's college application to Columbia University in which he listed both "Asian" and "Black or African American" as his race.
Although both of Mamdani's parents are of Indian descent, he was born in the African country of Uganda and lived there for the first five years of his life. Mamdani told the Times that he checked the box on the application for "Black or African American" because he considers himself an American who was born in Africa. He emphasized that he does not identify as Black and argued that he found it difficult to express the complexity of his racial background given the options on the application.
However, what is stirring controversy about the Times piece isn't so much its content but the source of its information. The Times acknowledges that the information on Mamdani was culled from a large hack of a Columbia database and that it received a copy of Mamdani's application from "an intermediary who goes by the name Crémieux on Substack and X," whom it describes as "an academic who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race."
A report from The Guardian's Jason Wilson published earlier this year shows that the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race. As Wilson documented, the "Crémieux" cited by the Times is a man named Jordan Lasker, whose writings regularly defend the work of "race scientists" who use I.Q. test results to argue that Black people are mentally inferior to other races.
"Crémieux runs a Substack also featuring posts on the supposed relationships between race and I.Q.," Wilson explained. "A prominently featured post there seeks to defend the argument that average national IQs vary by up to 40 points, with countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia at the high end and countries in the global south at the low end, and several African countries purportedly having average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment."
Another report from Talking Points Memo's Hunter Walker found that Lasker has regularly posted about a racial "I.Q. gap" and has even suggested that there are "genetic pathways of crime." On his X account, Lasker has mused about the differences in brain sizes between Black and white Americans and between women and men more generally.
Brandon McEuen, a historian at Wayne State University who specializes in teaching about the history of the eugenics movement, slammed the Times for not only relying on Lasker as its source for the story on Mamdani but also for granting him anonymity.
"The decision to keep Lasker anonymous is ridiculous since his name has already been published in other outlets that don't provide softballs for eugenicists," he wrote on his Bluesky account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Every Republican Who Backed Trump-GOP Budget 'Must Pay a Price at the Ballot Box'
"They do not deserve to be re-elected and they must be defeated," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 04, 2025
As communities across the United States braced for impact after congressional Republicans approved the biggest Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts in the nation's history, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that every lawmaker who supported the budget legislation "must pay a price at the ballot box" in the 2026 midterms and beyond.
"This bill includes the largest cut ever to Medicaid in order to pay for the largest tax break for billionaires that we have ever seen," Sanders (I-Vt.), who is working to recruit progressive candidates for office, said after the House passed the legislation, sending it to President Donald Trump's desk.
"Make no mistake about it: This bill is a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans," said Sanders.
While some GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate voiced concerns about the bill's massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs as the measure moved through Congress, the legislation ultimately garnered near-unanimous support from the Republican caucus when it came time for the final votes. Just three out of 53 Republican senators and two out of 220 GOP representatives voted against the completed bill.
Analysts and advocates expect the legislation to inflict major damage across the country, shuttering rural hospitals, stripping health coverage and food aid from millions, raising costs for Medicare recipients, and devastating local economies.
Some of the pain will be concentrated in swing districts currently represented by Republican supporters of the budget package. For example, 64% of Rep. David Valadao's (R-Calif.) constituents in California's 22nd Congressional District rely on Medicaid.
Valadao is one of 10 Republicans targeted by an ad push that the advocacy group Protect Our Care launched following Thursday's vote in the House. The other targeted lawmakers are Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.).
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "these Republicans just voted for the largest healthcare cuts in history in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, and we're going to make sure that every single one of their constituents knows it."
"These Republicans betrayed their constituents and working Americans' healthcare for billionaire tax cuts," Woodhouse added, "and we're ready to go from the grassroots to the airwaves until every last one of them is held accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court OKs Trump 'Third Country' Deportation of Men Held in Desert Shipping Container
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in a dissent to a previous ruling on the case that the decision exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death."
Jul 03, 2025
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to send eight men deported from the United States and currently in limbo on a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan, where only one of the deportees is from, under a policy of fast-tracking deportations to third countries.
In an apparent 7-2 unsigned decision, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the high court lifted an order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy blocking the deportation of the men—who are originally from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Korea, South Sudan, and Vietnam—to war-torn South Sudan, one of the world's most dangerous countries.
NEW: The U.S. Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to send people subject to deportation to countries they have no connection with that are so dangerous the Trump administration advises Americans not to travel there. The case involves eight men the Trump regime wants to send to South Sudan.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) July 3, 2025 at 2:29 PM
The men, who have all been convicted of serious crimes in the United States, have been detained for six weeks at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. base in the Horn of Africa nation of Djibouti. They have been nearly constantly shackled and are under constant guard in a shipping container. The container reportedly is equipped with air conditioning.
Neither the United States nor South Sudan has explained what will happen to the men upon their arrival in the East African nation.
Last month, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted Murphy's preliminary injunction, which had enabled migrants to file claims of persecution before their deportation to counties where they have no ties in a highly controversial process called third-country removal.
Dissenting in that ruling, Sotomayor wrote that the ruling exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death."
The administration then accused Murphy of defying the high court's ruling by insisting that the eight men still could not be sent to South Sudan and asked the justices for the clarification that came with Thursday's decision.
"They're now subject to imminent deportation to war torn South Sudan, a place where they have no ties and where it is possible, if not probable, that they will be arrested and detained upon arrival," Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the men, told Politico Thursday. "This ruling is condoning lawlessness."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular