Statewide single-use plastic bag ban moves forward in the Legislature
House Bill 392, the Single-Use Plastic Bag Act, proposes establishing a statewide ban on the bags, moving the entire state to join Carlsbad, Las Cruces, Silver City, Santa Fe and Taos in reducing plastic waste. (Photo by Leah Romero / Source NM)
New Mexicans use at least 330 million single-use plastic bags a year, according to the New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico Recycling Coalition. These bags are used for 12 minutes on average, but have a life expectancy of 1,000 years.
House Bill 392, the Single-Use Plastic Bag Act, proposes establishing a statewide ban on the bags, moving the entire state to join Carlsbad, Las Cruces, Silver City, Santa Fe and Taos in reducing plastic waste. The bill, carried by Rep. Tara Lujan (D-Santa Fe), passed through the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee Thursday on a party line vote of 7-4. It will head to the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee next.
'This bill would drastically reduce the amount of litter in the Land of Enchantment by banning single-use plastic bags with some common sense exceptions,' Lujan said the first time the bill was discussed by the House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 20.
The bill would require stores to charge a 10-cent fee per paper bag, with 3 cents going to the store and the rest going to the municipality or county for litter reduction and outreach. Lujan explained to committee members that municipalities have the choice to 'opt into' the program and adopt an ordinance to do so. If they choose not to join, the seven cents per bag will go to the Environment Department for litter reduction programs.
Exceptions to the bag ban include ones used: for takeout food; separating produce for sanitary reasons; prescription drugs; drycleaning and several other situations. HB392 also allows municipalities or the Environment Department to collect fines from a retail establishment if they do not comply. If passed, the bill would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026.
The fiscal impact report notes that in addition to creating microplastics, plastic bags are considered 'contaminants' by materials recovery facilities. They can shut down facility operations for hours if they get wrapped around sorting equipment and it can be dangerous for workers to remove the bags from machinery. The report estimates facilities could save $3.8 million a year if plastic bags were banned.
Rep. Jonathan Henry (R-Artesia) asked why the Legislature wouldn't allow municipalities or counties to take the time to make their own decision about adopting a plastic bag ban.
'This has been on the table for quite a while, if you will, and communities have had the opportunity to opt in,' Lujan responded. 'We're at a critical place where we need to take the action and that's what this bill delivers.'
Lujan co-sponsored a similar bill in 2023, Senate Bill 243, but it died in committee before it could be discussed on the Senate floor. Albuquerque also established a single-use plastic bag ban in 2020, but the City Council repealed the ban in March 2022, after overriding a veto from Mayor Tim Keller.
Danielle Prokop contributed to the reporting and writing of this article.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC doctors, legislators, and cancer survivors push for prostate cancer screening money
New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor speaks about his prostate cancer treatment at a news conference on a proposal to establish a statewide screening program for uninsured and underinsured men. (Photo: Lynn Bonner/NC Newsline) Offering prostate cancer screening to men who are uninsured or underinsured will save lives, legislators, doctors, advocates, and cancer survivors said at a news conference Tuesday. 'Prostate cancer is one of the most curable cancers if it is detected early,' said Rep. Rodney Pierce (D-Halifax), the bill's lead sponsor. But, too many North Carolinians are diagnosed too late. 'This legislation is about saving lives, about a higher quality of life, and giving our fathers, uncles, brothers, nephews and sons the fighting chance they deserve,' he said. House bill 128 would appropriate $2 million to establish a prostate cancer screening program modeled after the state's breast and cervical cancer screening program. Money for prostate screening is not in the House or Senate budget proposals, but Pierce hopes it will be funded. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the state, according to the UNC Men's Health Program. The issue has gained increased attention in the last few weeks after former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with 'a more aggressive form' of prostate cancer. Men in North Carolina are diagnosed with prostate cancer at higher rates than men nationally, according to the National Cancer Institute, and North Carolina's mortality rate is higher, at 20.2 per 100,000 men. Black men are more likely to develop prostate cancer and more likely to die from it, according to the American Cancer Society. Legislators at the Tuesday news conference made direct appeals to Black men to be screened. A blood test is used to screen for and monitor prostate cancer. Rep. Abe Jones (D-Wake) said he's tested twice a year because his father had prostate cancer. 'It is a sneaky, nasty, tricky disease,' Jones said. 'It's ugly and it kills Black men at a higher rate.' 'It doesn't give you a warning, it just comes on you,' Jones said. 'I just encourage all my brothers out there to please get tested.' New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor, a prostate cancer survivor, said the screening bill would help men in rural areas. It's vital for men to talk about prostate cancer, he said. 'It's so important to talk, talk, talk and share,' he said. 'You don't know how many lives you've saved by talking and sharing.' The bill proposes free or low-cost testing for uninsured or underinsured men ages 40 to 70 who have a family history of prostate cancer. Men without a family history would be eligible for screening at ages 50 to 70. Recommendations for screening have a cloudy history. In 2012, the US Preventative Service Task Force, a group of independent experts, recommended against routine screening. The recommendation changed in 2018, with the group suggesting men 55- to 69-years old talk with their doctors about regular screening. The task force is in the process of updating its recommendation. Dr. Dan George, a member of the Duke Cancer Institute who specializes in prostate cancers, said there's a concern that prostate cancer is going under-treated. 'It's so vitally important for people to recognize that knowledge is power,' George said. 'Understanding your cancer status is an opportunity for you to prevent a leading cause of death in this state.' Rural residents would benefit from routine testing that residents with access to medical specialists can more easily obtain, he said. Former state Sen. Eddie Goodall, a Union County Republican, talked about his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Goodall said he was diagnosed in 2005, just as his first term in the legislature was beginning. 'I was excited about being a freshman senator and being able to change the world,' Goodall said. Instead, he received a diagnosis that he kept secret from his mother because he didn't want her to worry about another son dying. Goodall said that five years before he was diagnosed, his brother died of cancer. Goodall said he talked and compared notes with another former senator who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same time. Goodall decided against surgery. The cancer spread to his bones. Goodall said he started hormone therapy in 2018 and was told he had 18 months to two years to live. 'But it's been seven years, and I'm still here. So I'm very grateful for that.'
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
President Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but Trump's administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5%-25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's targeted in Trump's request for $9.4 billion in budget cuts from Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is looking to cancel $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress. That's just a sliver of the $1.7 trillion that lawmakers OK'd for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The package of 21 budget rescissions will have to be approved by both chambers of Congress for the cuts to take place, beginning with a House vote expected Thursday. Otherwise, the spending remains in place. The White House is betting that cutting federal investments in public media and some foreign aid programs will prove politically popular. Republicans say if this first effort is successful, they hope more rescission packages will follow as they look to continue work by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency once run by billionaire Elon Musk. Democrats describe the cuts as inhumane and say they would rip life-saving support from hungry and sick people across the globe. Republicans are describing the cuts as 'modest' and say the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in helping the world's most vulnerable people. Here's a look at some of the spending the White House is trying to claw back: Public media on the chopping block The Republican president has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. Congress has traditionally provided public media with advanced funds to reduce political pressures. The corporation distributes the money mostly to public television and radio stations around the country, with some assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. Much of the conservatives' ire is focused on NPR and PBS. 'We believe that you all can hate us on your own dime,' said Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, during a hearing in March. But about two-thirds of the money goes to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. 'They want to punish the national guys, that's fine,' said Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican who said he was undecided going into this week's vote. 'But I'm trying to get a handle on what it means for my stations in Nevada, because the ability to fundraise at the national level ain't the same as the ability to fundraise in Reno.' The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the GOP bill passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Meanwhile, local radio stations say their share of the allocation provides funding for 386 stations employing nearly 10,000 people. Dozens of stations rely on the public grants for more than half of their budget. Many others for nearly half. Some Republicans say they worry about what the cuts would mean for local public stations but tough decisions are necessary. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said South Dakota Public Broadcasting does a 'really good job of covering the state Legislature" and other public affairs. 'So these rescissions are not going to be comfortable for South Dakota to deal with,' Johnson said. 'That being said, we're $37 trillion in debt." Funding to combat diseases Trump's administration is looking to claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The administration says the $500 million rescission for infectious diseases would not reduce treatment but would 'eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like 'family planning' and 'reproductive health,' LGBTQI+ activities, and equity programs.' It makes a similar assurance on the HIV funding, saying it would eliminate 'only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests.' Scores of humanitarian aid groups have asked lawmakers to oppose the proposed cuts. Catholic Relief Services called on donors to contact their members of Congress to urge them to vote against the bill. Without the U.S. assistance, "countless lives are at risk, and the needs will continue to rise,' said the plea to supporters. The importance of the United States' contribution to the global HIV response cannot be overstated, according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. It says the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, has saved more than 26 million lives and averted almost 5 million new HIV infections since it was launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, a Republican. 'Instead of facing a death sentence, people supported by PEPFAR are raising families, building their communities, and helping their communities grow and develop,' said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. Refugee assistance The Trump administration is looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. The program also helps vetted refugees who come to the U.S. get started in their new country. The White House says 'these funds support activities that could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors, providing savings to the U.S. taxpayer.' Refugees International urged Congress to reject what it described as a reckless proposal. Promoting stability About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The administration wants to claw back $2.5 billion of the $3.9 billion approved for the Development Assistance program at the U.S. Agency for International Development and about $1.7 billion, or nearly half of the funds, dedicated to the State Department's Economic Support Fund. The administration says in its request to Congress that the Development Assistance account is supposed to fund programs that work to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies, but in practice many of the programs 'conflict with American values' and bankroll corrupt leaders' evasion of responsibilities to their citizens while providing "no clear benefit to Americans.' U.S. leaders have often argued over the years that helping to eradicate conditions that lead to political upheaval abroad is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing. 'By helping stem pandemics and war and helping countries become healthy, free-market democracies, we are actually helping our own country,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Republicans are rejecting the dire warnings. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said ' waste, fraud and abuse is what this is all about.'
