July, 22 2021, 11:37am EDT

300+ Organizations, Businesses Urge U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to Ban Single-Use Plastics in National Parks
National Park Service could greatly reduce plastic pollution by prohibiting unnecessary plastic in U.S. parks.
WASHINGTON
Today, a diverse group of more than 300 nonprofits, organizations, and businesses sent a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland urging her to direct the National Park Service to address the growing plastic pollution crisis by banning unnecessary single-use plastic from the nation's 423 national parks. The letter, which was aptly delivered during a month observed as both Plastic-Free July and Park and Recreation Month, calls for eliminating the sale and distribution of polystyrene-foam products and single-use plastic bottles, bags, and foodware -- including cups, plates, bowls, and utensils -- in national parks.
"Millions of people flock to our national parks every year to enjoy incredible experiences of nature, history, and culture. But plastic pollution has been creeping into these special places at alarming rates -- a 2020 study found that even the rain that falls in our national parks contains plastic," said Christy Leavitt, Oceana's plastics campaign director. "Unnecessary single-use plastics have no place in our country's most treasured spaces, and Secretary Haaland has the power to ignite that change."
The move would build on the Green Parks Plan and previous efforts to reduce the sale of bottled water in parks; ensure visitors have access to safe water; and save parks, visitors, and park partners money.
"The science has found that plastic pollution is an epidemic impacting all environments in every climate and region on this planet, causing a health crisis that is slowly building. We strongly encourage the National Park Service to lead in its conservation practices by eliminating all single-use plastics for public consumption in its national parks," said Alison Waliszewski, policy and outreach manager at the 5 Gyres Institute. "This type of leadership will nudge consumer behavior toward better decision-making, encourage inclusion of new and innovative alternatives, and signal a commitment to the health of our fragile ecosystems worldwide."
A ban would also advance the Biden administration's goals for addressing environmental justice and the climate crisis. Plastic production facilities, incinerators, and landfills are often located in low income communities and communities of color, where they pollute residents' air, water, and soil.
"The problem is that plastic pollution isn't just an issue of waste accumulation," said Mariana Del Valle Preito Cervantes with Green Latinos. "Plastics are also manufactured and often incinerated in communities where poor people and people of color live. Plastic pollution is fueling the climate crisis, hurting the health of our communities and the environment. Having the National Park Service eliminate the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in our national parks is a good first step by the Biden administration in recognizing the problem of plastic pollution."
By eliminating single-use plastics, the National Park Service can help protect these communities.
"The National Park Service has a golden opportunity to illustrate the agency's commitment to environmental protection by prohibiting the sale of plastic bottles in national parks," said Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics. "Plastic production poisons communities where it is manufactured and is responsible for major greenhouse gas emissions. This is an environmental justice issue where we need President Biden to lead."
If Secretary Haaland required such a change, the National Park Service would also be reducing its carbon footprint, as plastic contributes to climate change at every stage of its life cycle. In fact, if plastic were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
"While our national parks are often called 'America's best idea,' single-use plastics are one of the worst," said Julia Cohen, managing director of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. "99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, and plastic pollutes at every stage of its existence. We urge Secretary Haaland to eliminate the sale and use of single-use plastics in U.S. national parks. Let's stop trashing our treasures -- our national parks!"
This would not be the first time the U.S. government addressed plastic pollution in national parks. In 2011, President Obama encouraged national parks to ban the sale of plastic water bottles. The Trump administration scrapped the policy in 2017, forcing 23 parks that had gone bottle-free, including the Grand Canyon and Zion, to reverse course. It has been four years since the National Park Service has taken meaningful steps to protect its revered spaces from plastic pollution, and it is time to get back on track.
"Washington State's three national parks -- Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic -- stand as role models for protecting our lands and providing amazing recreational activities for visitors from around the globe," said Heather Trim, executive director at Zero Waste Washington. "Halting the sale of single-use plastic water bottles is a terrific first step for these national iconic places."
Scientists estimate that 33 billion pounds of plastic wash into the ocean every year. That equates to about two garbage trucks' worth of plastic entering the ocean every minute. Just this past November, Oceana found evidence of nearly 1,800 marine mammals and sea turtles swallowing or becoming entangled in plastic in U.S. waters between 2009 and early 2020, and 88% of those animals were from species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
"Plastic pollution has been a growing problem worldwide. We are delighted to have worked with a strong coalition to bring the request for eliminating single-use plastics in national parks to Secretary Haaland," said Melissa Jung, program and outreach manager at Inland Ocean Coalition. "Our national parks, communities and all the watersheds leading to the ocean will benefit from this important conservation effort."
Plastic has been found in every corner of the world and has turned up in drinking water, beer, salt, honey, and more.
"Plastic pollution poses an alarming threat to the health of our national parks, their waterways and wildlife, from Biscayne National Park in Florida to Katmai National Park and Preserve in Alaska," said Sarah Barmeyer, Senior Managing Director for Conservation Programs at the National Parks Conservation Association. "We need bold action to protect our parks from plastic pollution, and halting sales of unnecessary single-use plastics within park boundaries is a logical place to start. With viable alternatives, there is no need to continue putting our parks and communities at risk from plastic pollution."
Recycling alone will not solve this problem -- only 9% of the plastic waste ever created has been recycled, and companies continue to push new plastic products into the market. With plastic production growing at a rapid rate, increasing amounts of plastic can be expected to flood our planet with devastating consequences.
"As business leaders, we have a responsibility to the communities in which we live and work--not only to create products and services that serve our people and planet, but to actively use our expertise, experience, and resources to advocate for positive change," said Michael Martin, founder and CEO of r.Cup and Effect Partners. "That's why we've signed onto this letter calling on Secretary Haaland to eliminate the sale and distribution of single-use plastics in our national parks."
"Oceanic Global is proud to support this initiative that aligns with our core programs which are focused on helping businesses implement alternatives to single-use plastics while holding them accountable to global standards," said Cassia Patel, Program Director, Oceanic Global Foundation. "The national parks, as shared spaces where all are welcome to enjoy the beauty of our natural world, are a natural ally to pioneer best practices for responsible consumption, and ideally go reusable as well as offer freely available clean drinking water! #ReopenWithReuse."
To learn more about Oceana's campaign to stop plastic pollution, please visit usa.oceana.org/plastics.
Please use this link to share the release: https://bit.ly/3hUYpKV
Oceana is the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization. Oceana works to protect and restore the world's oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
LATEST NEWS
Rick Scott Pushes Amendment to GOP Budget Bill That Could Kick Millions More Off Medicaid
Scott's proposal for more draconian cuts has renewed scrutiny regarding his past as a hospital executive, where he oversaw the "largest government fraud settlement ever," which included stealing from Medicaid.
Jun 30, 2025
Sen. Rick Scott has introduced an amendment to the Republican budget bill that would slash another $313 million from Medicaid and kick off millions more recipients.
The latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 17 million people could lose their health insurance by 2034 as the result of the bill as it already exists.
According to a preliminary estimate by the Democrats on the Joint Congressional Economic Committee, that number could balloon up to anywhere from 20 to 29 million if Scott's (R-Fla.) amendment passes.
The amendment will be voted on as part of the Senate's vote-a-rama, which is expected to run deep into Monday night and possibly into Tuesday morning.
"If Sen. Rick Scott's amendment gets put forward, this would be a self-inflicted healthcare crisis," said Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress.
The existing GOP reconciliation package contains onerous new restrictions, including new work requirements and administrative hurdles, that will make it harder for poor recipients to claim Medicaid benefits.
Scott's amendment targets funding for the program by ending the federal government's 90% cost sharing for recipients who join Medicaid after 2030. Those who enroll after that date would have their medical care reimbursed by the federal government at a lower rate of 50%.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced the increased rate in 2010 to incentivize states to expand Medicaid, allowing more people to be covered.
Scott has said his program would "grandfather" in those who had already been receiving the 90% reimbursement rate.
However, Medicaid is run through the states, which will have to spend more money to keep covering those who need the program after 2030.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that this provision "would shift an additional $93 billion in federal Medicaid funding to states from 2031 through 2034 on top of the cuts already in the Senate bill."
This will almost certainly result in states having to cut back, by introducing their stricter requirements or paperwork hurdles.
Additionally, nine states have "trigger laws" that are set to end the program immediately if the federal matching rate is reduced: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
The Joint Congressional Economic Committee estimated Tuesday that around 2.5 million more people will lose their insurance as a result of those cuts.
If all the states with statutory Medicaid expansion ended it as a result of Scott's cuts, as many as 12.5 million could lose their insurance. Combined with the rest of the bill, that's potentially 29 million people losing health insurance coverage, the committee said.
A chart shows how many people are estimated to lose healthcare coverage with each possible version of the GOP bill.(Chart: Congressional Joint Economic Committee Democrats)
There are enough Republicans in the Senate to pass the bill with Scott's amendment. However, they can afford no more than three defections. According to Politico, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have signaled they will vote against the amendment.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) also said he'd "have a hard time" voting yes on the bill if Scott's amendment passed. His state of West Virginia has the second-highest rate of people using federal medical assistance of any state in the country, behind only Mississippi.
Critics have called out Scott for lying to justify this line of cuts. In a recent Fox News appearance, Scott claimed that his new restrictions were necessary to stop Democrats who want to "give illegal aliens Medicaid benefits," even though they are not eligible for the program.
Scott's proposal has also brought renewed scrutiny to his past as a healthcare executive.
"Ironically enough, some of the claims against Scott's old hospital company revolved around exploiting Medicaid, and billing for services that patients didn't need," wrote Andrew Perez in Rolling Stone Monday.
In 2000, Scott's hospital company, HCA, was forced to pay $840 million in fines, penalties, and damages to resolve claims of unlawful billing practices in what was called the "largest government fraud settlement ever." Among the charges were that during Scott's tenure, the company overbilled Medicare and Medicaid by pretending patients were sicker than they actually were.
The company entered an additional settlement in 2003, paying out another $631 million to compensate for the money stolen from these and other government programs.
Scott himself was never criminally charged, but resigned in 1997 as the Department of Justice began to probe his company's activities. Despite the scandal, Scott not only became a U.S. senator, but is the wealthiest man in Congress, with a net worth of more than half a billion dollars.
The irony of this was not lost on Perez, who wrote: "A few decades later, Scott is now trying to extract a huge amount of money from state Medicaid funds to help finance Trump's latest round of tax cuts for the rich."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Historic Heatwave Grips Europe, Coalition Says 'No to a Climate Law for Polluters'
"Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility? Or will it choose political convenience?"
Jun 30, 2025
As yet another dangerous heatwave pushes temperatures well into the triple digits across much of Europe, climate defenders on Monday renewed calls for stronger action to combat the planetary emergency—including by ensuring that the impending European Climate Law ends fossil fuel use and eschews false solutions including international carbon offsetting.
Croatia, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are among the countries where near- or record-high temperatures have been recorded. Portugal and Spain both recorded their hottest-ever June days over the weekend. El Granado in southwestern Spain saw the mercury soar to nearly 115°C (46°C) on Saturday. The heatwave is expected to continue into the middle of the week, with authorities warning of elevated wildfire risk and potential severe health impacts.
"Extreme heat is no longer a rare event—it has become the new normal," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Sunday on social media. "I'm experiencing it firsthand in Spain during the Financing for Development Conference. The planet is getting hotter and more dangerous—no country is immune. We need more ambitious #ClimateAction now."
On Monday, Real Zero Europe—"a campaign calling on the European Union to deliver real emissions reductions and real solutions to the climate crisis, instead of corporate greenwashed 'net zero' targets"—published a call for an E.U. Climate Law that does not contain provisions for international carbon offsetting, in which countries or corporations compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects that reduce emissions in other nations.
🔴 OUT NOW📢 69 NGOs call on the EU to deliver a Climate Law that rejects international carbon offsetting & Carbon Dioxide Removals (#CDR), commits to a full fossil fuel phase-out, and reflects Europe’s fair share of climate responsibility!Read the statement👇www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/st...
[image or embed]
— Real Zero Europe (@realzeroeurope.bsky.social) June 30, 2025 at 2:40 AM
A draft proposal of the legislation published Monday by Politico revealed that the European Commission will allow E.U. member states to outsource climate efforts to Global South nations staring in 2036, despite opposition from the 27-nation bloc's independent scientific advisory board. The outsourcing will enable the E.U. to fund emissions-reducing projects in developing nations and apply those reductions to Europe's own 2040 target—which is a 90% net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.
The proposal also embraces carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies like carbon capture and storage, whose scalability is unproven. Climate groups call them false solutions that prolong the fossil fuel era.
"E.U. climate policy stands at a crossroads: Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility?" the Real Zero Europe letter says. "Or will it choose political convenience—abandoning that goal under pressure from corporate and populist interests, and turning to risky, unjust carbon offsetting and other false solutions?"
"Taking responsibility for the E.U.'s past and present role in causing the climate crisis means doubling down on a just and full fossil fuel phaseout not hiding behind false solutions as currently proposed," the letter continues. "The law as planned will send a dangerous signal far beyond E.U. borders. The climate and biodiversity crises are already harming people, especially vulnerable communities and populations largely in the Global South, who have least contributed to the climate crisis."
The 69 groups stress that international carbon offsetting "is a smokescreen for giving license to fossil fuel use beyond 2050" that diverts critical resources and public funds from real climate solutions and climate finance."
"Given the scale of climate catastrophe, for the E.U. to allow international offsets and technological CDR gives a lifeline to polluting industries such as the fossil fuel, agribusiness, plastics, and petrochemical industries," the letter states.
"We say no to an E.U. Climate Law that puts polluting industries over people and climate by embracing the use of international offsets and CDR approaches," the letter's signers said. "We call on the Commission to deliver an E.U. Climate Law and its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the U.N. climate negotiations that clearly reflects the bloc's responsibility for the climate crisis. That means a full fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition."
This heatwave is brutal. Temperatures above 40°C in June across France, Spain, Italy...We still hear from right-wing politicians that “it’s just summer.” It’s not. This is the climate crisis courtesy of the fossil fuels industry. It’s not normal.
[image or embed]
— European Greens (@europeangreens.eu) June 30, 2025 at 7:01 AM
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also addressed the European heatwave on Monday, saying that "the climate crisis is a human rights crisis."
"Rising temperatures, rising seas, floods, droughts, and wildfires threaten our rights to life, to health, to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and much more," he continued. "The heatwave we are currently experiencing here shows us the importance of adaptation measures, without which human rights would be severely impacted."
"It is equally clear that our current production and consumption patterns are unsustainable, and that renewables are the energy source of the future," Türk asserted. "Production capacity for renewables increased five-fold between 2011 and 2023. What we need now is a roadmap that shows us how to rethink our societies, economies and politics in ways that are equitable and sustainable. That is, a just transition."
"This shift requires an end to the production and use of fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive activities across all sectors—from energy to farming to finance to construction and beyond," he added. "This will be one of the greatest transformations our world has ever seen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Hell No,' Say Critics as Trump's Megabill Poised to Drastically Expand ICE's Dragnet
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote one observer.
Jun 30, 2025
Critics are sounding the alarm as congressional Republicans edge closer to passing a sweeping tax and spending bill desired by U.S. President Donald Trump that would inject tens of billions of dollars of funding into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency at the forefront of the president's immigration crackdown.
"Republicans' Big, Bad Betrayal Bill shovels BILLIONS OF DOLLARS more into ICE's budget. Yes, the same ICE that has arrested U.S. citizens, carried out illegal deportations, and denied members of Congress access to detention facilities. HELL NO," wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on X on Sunday.
On Monday, the Senate kicked off a vote-a-rama process where senators can demand an unlimited number of votes on amendments to the reconciliation package.
While negotiations on the legislation are still ongoing, the version of the reconciliation bill that was narrowly advanced in the Senate on Saturday includes $29.85 billion for ICE to "remain available through September 30, 2029" for personnel recruitment, technology for "enforcement and removal operations," and other priorities. It also includes $45 billion "for single adult alien detention capacity and family residential center capacity," also available through the same period.
The bill text also includes $46.5 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to spend on border infrastructure, to remain available through September 30, 2029.
Journalist Nicolae Viorel Butler, who reports on immigration for the outlet Migrant Insider, reported on Sunday that all told the measure proposes in excess of $175 billion in "direct immigration-related funding for fiscal year 2025."
This, Butler wrote, reflects "a historic expansion of immigration enforcement operations under a Republican-controlled Congress and the Trump administration."
This money would be a big addition on top of what these agencies already receive. For example, a National Immigration Forum explainer focused on the House version of the reconciliation package noted that $45 billion for ICE detention capacity constitutes an 800% increase in detention funding compared to fiscal year 2024.
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote the philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò on Bluesky, commenting on the infusion of funding.
In every state, immigration arrests carried out by ICE have sharply increased. Also the number of those arrested and detained by ICE who have no criminal record is up more than 1,400% compared to a year ago, according to The Washington Post.
Increased funding for ICE and immigration enforcement is not the only part of the bill drawing scrutiny.
In May, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said that the U.S. House of Representatives-passed version of the legislation would, if passed, cut household resources for the bottom 10% of Americans while delivering gains to the wealthiest in the form of tax breaks. Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, called the House version of the legislation the "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history."
"If the Republican budget passes, a lot of Americans will indeed suffer. But so too will millions of noncitizens who came to the U.S. seeking better lives for themselves and their families," wrotePost columnist Philip Bump of the increase in funding for ICE.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular