Toiletries in single use plastics may be checking out of hotels
HONOLULU (KHON2) — Those small toiletry amenities guests receive at hotels may soon come to an end. Officials hope it's a way to make Hawaii more eco-friendly and sustainable.Hotels and lodging establishments may soon have to phase out the use of complimentary shampoos, conditioners and lotions packaged in single-use plastics.
Bill looks to ban sale of single-use plastics at certain Hawaii facilities
'There's an incredible amount of single use plastic that we use every day that ends up in the landfill or maybe goes to H-power and ends up as landfill ash or just goes straight to the landfill on the islands,' stated Rep. Nicole Lowen, primary sponsor of HB 348. 'Microplastics being in our food and water and even in the air.'
The measure aims to promote sustainable tourism and preserve Hawaii's natural resources.
'Hawaii really advertises itself as a place to come visit because of its beautiful natural environment,' said Rep. Lowen. 'There really isn't a sacrifice here. There will still be complimentary shampoo in hotel rooms.'
Even before the bill was introduced, some hotels like the Outrigger, started the process of having bulk amenities at most of its resorts.
They said four of their hotels in Hawaii have fully gotten rid of single-use plastics for something more sustainable.
'Less plastic waste, less product being wasted,' stated Mark Wornson, Outrigger's Corporate Director of Procurement & Vendor Management. 'Reducing single use plastics helps us with coral reef conservation, as well as just keeping our island homes clean.'
The Outrigger also stopped giving out complimentary bottles of sunscreen and now makes it available through a large dispenser.
'We wanted to do something that was a little bit more sustainable, and so this just made sense,' stated Wornson, 'We've also moved our water bottles to a more sustainable solution in these reusable aluminum water bottles, as opposed to plastic bottles that are filled with water.'
Check out more news from around Hawaii
The bill is now making its way through the Senate.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How House And Senate Education Proposals Could Reshape Higher Education
Graduation mortar board cap on one hundred dollar bills concept for the cost of a college and ... More university education As Congress navigates the complex terrain of budget reconciliation, education policy has emerged as a major battleground between competing visions for America's higher education system. The House and Senate are advancing dramatically different approaches to federal education funding, with proposals that could fundamentally alter how millions of students access and pay for college. The House reconciliation bill targets higher education with what critics describe as unprecedented cuts, while the Senate is crafting its version that takes a different approach to similar goals. Both chambers face mounting pressure to address rising college costs and student debt, but their proposed solutions diverge sharply on fundamental questions about the federal government's role in education funding. The most significant differences between the House and Senate proposals center on Pell Grant eligibility, the cornerstone of federal student aid that serves nearly 7 million low-income students annually. The House version seeks to expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, a bipartisan initiative that would allow students to use federal aid for career training programs lasting as little as eight weeks. This expansion could benefit hundreds of thousands of students pursuing high-demand skills in healthcare, technology, and skilled trades. However, the House proposal also includes restrictions based on immigration status that would eliminate aid for specific student populations. The Senate takes a more restrictive approach to existing eligibility. Senate Republicans propose cutting off Pell Grant access for students who receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, living expenses, and course materials. This provision would primarily affect high-achieving students from low-income families who combine merit aid with need-based grants, potentially forcing them to choose between scholarship opportunities and federal aid eligibility. The impact of these competing approaches would be profound. The House expansion could democratize access to career training, potentially addressing workforce shortages in critical industries. However, the Senate's scholarship restriction could create perverse incentives, discouraging institutions from offering comprehensive aid packages to their neediest students. Both chambers propose significant changes to federal student lending but through different mechanisms. The House bill includes provisions for "risk-sharing" arrangements that would require colleges to assume financial responsibility for a portion of their students' loan defaults. This policy aims to incentivize institutions to improve outcomes and control costs by making them stakeholders in their graduates' financial success. The House approach represents a market-based solution that could drive down costs and improve program quality. Institutions would have strong incentives to ensure their programs lead to employment outcomes that enable loan repayment. However, critics argue this could push colleges to avoid serving higher-risk student populations or eliminate programs in fields with lower earning potential but high social value. Senate proposals focus more on tightening eligibility requirements and modifying repayment terms, though specific details remain under development as the chamber works toward its July 4 deadline for passage. The most controversial element of the House proposal involves new taxes on college and university endowments. The bill would expand existing endowment taxes and impose additional levies on institutions with substantial financial reserves. Supporters argue this addresses the disconnect between institutional wealth and student affordability, forcing well-endowed colleges to contribute more to the broader education system. The endowment tax provisions could generate significant revenue while pressuring wealthy institutions to increase student aid or reduce tuition. However, universities warn that such taxes could reduce their capacity for long-term investment in research, facilities, and student support services that benefit the broader academic mission. Small colleges, including Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell, have banded together to oppose the tax because half or more of their operating income comes from the endowment revenue, and the tax would decimate their financial aid budgets. The Senate has not adopted endowment taxation to the same extent, instead focusing on spending reductions and eligibility restrictions to achieve fiscal goals. The House reconciliation bill extends beyond traditional education policy to affect healthcare access for students. Provisions related to Medicaid and other health programs could significantly impact the millions of college students who rely on these services. The bill's approach to social safety net programs would create additional barriers for students from low-income families who depend on multiple forms of federal assistance. This broader impact illustrates how education policy intersects with other aspects of social policy, making the stakes of reconciliation higher than traditional education legislation. The House takes Title I, II, III, and IV funds into state block grants based on the total student population (excluding the disabled and low-income populations) and allows students to use these funds for private schools. The Senate bill strengthens formulas to target the highest-poverty districts and schools better. The Senate bill generally rejects significant Title I portability beyond district public and charter options. The House bill eliminates federal mandates for state accountability systems (testing frequency, interventions). It proposes that states design their systems (standards, tests, improvement) with minimal federal approval. It maintains basic federal reporting (graduation, disaggregated data). The Senate bill takes the opposite approach, requiring a robust federal accountability system, annual testing in core grades, identification of low-performing schools, evidence-based interventions, public and transparent data, and disaggregated data. The federal requirements for teacher preparation and accountability would be transferred to the states under the House bill, with states setting their standards for certification, evaluation, and professional development. The Senate bill would maintain the federal role and would provide funds for evidence-based professional development in high-need districts. It also has provisions to require states to demonstrate that students have access to experienced and effective teachers. Charter school funding is increased in the House bill, as is access to vouchers to attend private schools. The Senate bill places restrictions on the use of vouchers or Educational Savings Accounts to fund private school tuition and places increasing accountability measures on these funds. The House bill similarly adds early childhood funds to state block grants. In contrast, the Senate bill provides significant new federal funding for universal, high-quality Pre-K programs with state quality standards. It may also expand childcare subsidies and improve quality. Evaluating these competing visions requires considering both immediate impacts and long-term consequences for educational access and quality. The House expansion of Pell Grants for short-term programs addresses a genuine need in the modern economy, where many high-paying careers require specialized training rather than traditional four-year degrees. This provision could significantly improve economic mobility for working-class Americans seeking career advancement through skills training. However, the House bill's overall approach prioritizes fiscal savings over educational access. The combination of aid restrictions, endowment taxes, and risk-sharing requirements could create a more constrained higher education environment where institutions focus primarily on financial metrics rather than educational missions. The Senate's more targeted approach to eligibility restrictions may preserve broader access while addressing specific concerns about the efficiency of aid. However, the scholarship restriction provision could undermine the very merit-aid programs that many institutions use to attract and retain talented students from diverse backgrounds. Both proposals face significant implementation challenges and political obstacles. The House bill's passage required narrow party-line votes, and similar dynamics are likely in the Senate. The fundamental tension between controlling costs and maintaining access will ultimately require compromise that neither chamber's current approach fully addresses. The most promising elements from both proposals involve targeted expansions of aid for career training and workforce development programs that directly address economic needs. However, the broader restructuring of federal education funding requires more careful consideration of unintended consequences. Effective education reform should expand opportunity while maintaining quality and access. The current reconciliation process, driven primarily by fiscal rather than educational considerations, may not provide the optimal framework for achieving these goals. A more comprehensive reauthorization of higher education policy, developed through bipartisan collaboration, would better serve both students and institutions. As both chambers work toward final passage, the ultimate measure of success should be whether these proposals genuinely improve educational outcomes and economic opportunity for American students rather than simply achieving short-term budgetary targets.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
North Carolina shifts pension control to new board
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein signed a bill into law Friday that would change how the state picks investments for its $127 billion pension plan. Why it matters: The new law fulfills a campaign promise for Brad Briner, a Republican recently elected state treasurer, to move the pension plan's management from a sole-fiduciary model to a model where a board votes on the decisions. Up until now, North Carolina was one of the few remaining states where the state treasurer made the final investment decisions on all public investment funds in the state. Driving the news: House Bill 506 creates the North Carolina Investment Authority, which will be made of a board of five people: the state treasurer and four other members appointed by the House speaker, the Senate leader, the governor and the treasurer. Board members, who will need at least 10 years of experience in pension, endowment or investment management, will make final decisions on investments and risk tolerance. What they're saying: "This bill puts North Carolina in line with the rest of the nation and allows us to make responsible decisions investing our state employees' hard-earned pensions. I applaud Treasurer Briner for his leadership in modernizing our state's investment system," Stein, a Democrat, said of the bill in a statement.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Moving pieces mean ‘a ton going on' at Cannabis Commission
'Obviously, a ton going on which we're all aware of,' Ahern said Thursday. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The $19.88 million that Gov. Maura Healey, the House and the Senate have all backed for the CCC in the fiscal 2026 budget 'does not meet the needs of the organization,' Ahern As it prepares for a thinner-than-desired budget next year, Ahern said the CCC is 'in a hiring freeze based on our FY 26 budget projection' and is 'evaluating right now vacancies and the appropriateness of having those posted within the context of that hiring freeze.' Advertisement 'If that were to be impacted by a potential supplemental budget availability ... that will change kind of the outlook. And I would just say as well, for those who are concerned at all about that hiring freeze, just to note publicly as well, that, you know, obviously a hiring freeze can be lifted,' he said. The executive director said the CCC will now look to convince lawmakers to add a little more than $3 million to the agency's budget for public awareness efforts, IT infrastructure improvements, and to continue to engage consultants around testing issues. The CCC 'So that would get us to a little bit more of a normal state prior to new work created through this [House-approved] bill,' Ahern said. 'And then, obviously, we'll be working with the Legislature to calculate the cost of implementing some of the changes contemplated in this bill as it moves forward with the Senate.' The bill that the The House bill was sent to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Monday and the News Service asked committee chair Sen. Michael Rodrigues on Thursday about interest in the topic among senators. Advertisement 'We're always interested to see what they do and we'll be taking a look at it,' he said, adding, 'Everything has some urgency about it, so we want to do everything in as timely a manner as possible.' Rodrigues emphasized that he's focused on other matters right now, mainly the annual state budget and surtax spending bills that are both in conference committee and a $532 million budget bill that the Senate plans to take up next week. 'My life's all about budgets right now,' Rodrigues said. The CCC approved a Ahern told commissioners Thursday that the agency is 'probably in a wait and see on where the Senate might be on that as they begin to take their steps forward.' 'It does appear, as we look at the legislative process, the Senate may take a little bit more time before we probably get to a conference scenario on where the overall package looks,' he said. In the meantime, the CCC plans to meet again next week to pick up its work on social consumption regulations. The 2016 legalization ballot law contemplated establishments where adults could use legal cannabis in a social setting and the latest proposal was Advertisement Beyond social consumption and potentially rules to deal with a long-discussed issue with employee badging, Ahern said the CCC may go quiet on the regulatory front as things shake out on Beacon Hill. 'I think ultimately we're just going to have to continue to work with our partners in the Legislature on the timeline of when the Senate might be coming back with with their approach, and then also keeping an eye on when this could actually get through conference, because, from a regulatory perspective of the commissioners, that's going to impact kind of the schedule for the whole year,' the executive director said. Michael P. Norton contributed reporting.
