Lawmakers move forward with controversial bill that could drastically change the way businesses and schools operate: 'Common sense'
Connecticut's food service containers are about to get a lot less trashy. As the nonprofit newsroom Connecticut Inside Investigator reported, the state's Environment Committee recently passed a bill that will ban single-use plastic utensils, straws, stirrers, and polystyrene food containers beginning in 2026. The exception will be for requests made to accommodate disabilities and medical purposes.
The bill is co-sponsored by several House Democrats, who listed environmental protection and pollution reduction as the key drivers behind the legislation.
Alex Rodriguez of Save the Sound called the actions "vital" during public testimony. "Polystyrene is not only bulky, challenging, and expensive to recycle, but it also breaks down into microplastics that contaminate our environment and drinking water," he said. "With 11 states and the European Union already enacting similar bans, it is time for us to take decisive action."
The bill isn't universally popular, though. Businesses and schools, including the Connecticut State Department of Education, oppose it for the financial burden it will place on them to comply with the plastics ban. Representatives from the CSDE estimated that switching to compostable dining trays and cutlery would cost "at least $18.7 million," the Inside Investigator reported.
"The burden this proposal places on schools significantly limits the available resources to improve the components that make up school meals, including purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables from local farmers," CSDE Commissioner Charlene Tucker-Russell wrote.
However, advocates for the bill argue that this transition is actually more feasible than those estimates make it appear.
"Polystyrene alternatives such as cardboard are easier to recycle while costing roughly the same to businesses," former Stamford Mayor David Martin said in a news release. "This is a common sense environmental reform that benefits everyone who lives on this planet."
Considering the impact that microplastics have on human health — and the health of our food chain and ecosystems — it's understandable that many of the bill's proponents position it as not only an environmentally friendly policy but a public health policy too.
Should the government ban gas stoves?
Yes
Only in new buildings
Only in restaurants
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Less red tape, more trains: SCOTUS boosts the ‘abundance' agenda
Whether that's a good or bad thing divides progressives. Advertisement Some environmentalists decried the ruling. 'This disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,' Wendy Park, an attorney for one of the environmental groups that challenged the railway, told Reuters. But the more interesting story here was the dogs that didn't bark — the liberals that a decade ago probably would have lambasted the ruling, but were notably silent. It's also interesting that the court's three liberals joined the 8-0 ruling (one justice recused himself). Advertisement Broadly speaking, the abundance theory is that Democrats need to show they can do stuff and build things if they are going to win the trust of voters. For too long, progressives have said they believe in the power of government to help people — to build housing, transit lines, clean energy, etc. — but then hobbled the ability of either the government or the private sector to actually do any of those things. Now voters just don't believe their promises — and they're right to be leery, since progressive rules too often turn progressives priorities like the California High Speed rail project into quagmires. Indeed, parts of Kavanaugh's ruling sound eerily like the words of a Democratic policy wonk. Because of overly onerous reviews, he wrote, 'fewer projects make it to the starting line. Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary… And that also means fewer jobs, as new projects become difficult to finance and build in a timely fashion.' The original 1970 environmental-review law was never intended to work this way, he said. 'A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise' of just a little more process,' he wrote. 'The goal of the law is to inform agency decision-making, not to paralyze it,' he wrote. A rail overpass being built in Hanford, Calif., that may or may not carry high speed trains at some point. IAN C. BATES/NYT The gist of the ruling is that projects can't be expected to analyze every imaginable environmental impact. It's one thing for backers to study the immediate, predictable environmental impact of a construction project on wildlife, for instance. But environmental groups also wanted the Utah review to include an analysis of the extra greenhouse gas emissions the project could lead to if it led to more global oil production and use that pushed up emissions, something that was outside the control of either the railroad or its regulators. Advertisement It's easy to see how that thinking can lead to absurd outcomes. The further from the actual project, the more an analysis of environmental 'impact' is built on speculation and conjecture. At an extreme, it's like asking the butterfly to study its environmental impact on the hurricane. There has to be some limiting principle on the scope of reviews to avoid the kind of paralysis that Kavanaugh warned about — and that California's rail project in fact experienced. You probably won't find a Democrat willing to say it, but Kavanaugh and the court did them a big favor. They can spend less time fighting among themselves now that the decision has been made for them to narrow the scope of environmental review. And the next time progressives run on promises to build transit lines or green energy, the ruling makes it a little bit more likely they'll actually be able to deliver. This is an excerpt from , a Globe Opinion newsletter about the future of transportation in the region. Sign up to . Alan Wirzbicki is Globe deputy editor for editorials. He can be reached at
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reaction to Trump's crackdown on LA protests splits sharply on party lines
Unrest in Los Angeles has become a microcosm of US political divisions on immigration enforcement operations, with political leaders offering vastly different interpretations of the Trump administration's deployment of national guard troops and the mass targeting of undocumented communities. The divide over the same events came into full view when the California Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters was denied entry to an LA detention center over the weekend, with Marjorie Taylor Greene, her Republican colleague from Georgia, mocking her on social media. 'Maxine Waters is big mad she got turned away by ICE when she went to go check on her CRIMINAL ILLEGALS!!' Greene posted on X, comparing Waters' situation to her own denial of access to the DC jail to visit 'AMERICAN CITIZENS being held in solitary confinement.' Related: Los Angeles gears up for fourth day of protests against immigration raids Greene later added: '2,000 National Guard is not enough for the LA insurrection and Democrat led war on America!!!' The exchange crystallizes the demonstrable split over the politicians: Democratic lawmakers condemn what they characterize as cruelty and federal overreach, while Republicans defend Trump's actions as necessary law enforcement. The California Democratic senator Adam Schiff urged restraint from protesters, warning on social media that 'violence is never the answer' and cautioning that attacking law enforcement officers 'plays directly into the hands of those who seek to antagonize and weaponize the situation for their own gain'. On the other hand, Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, posted 'deportations have never sounded better'. Several thousand protesters have so far gathered around federal facilities and city hall in Los Angeles, with demonstrations spilling on to freeways and disrupting traffic throughout downtown – with instances of law enforcement officers shooting non-lethal bullets at an Australian reporter and a British news photographer, heavy clashes with law enforcement, and setting fire to autonomous vehicles. It is unclear how many national guardsmen have actually been deployed, but the Los Angeles police department declared the downtown area an unlawful assembly zone early on Monday morning. The Florida Democratic congressman Darren Soto criticized the administration's immigration enforcement sweep, arguing that 'American citizens are even getting snatched up just for looking Hispanic' and that 'due process has also been largely ignored'. But Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio branded the demonstrations 'a violent uprising in defense of criminal illegal aliens', declaring that 'President Trump is absolutely right to restore law and order.' Eli Crane, a Republican congressman from Arizona, mocked California's leadership over the chaos, while the California Republican Darrell Issa accused Democrats of believing 'enforcing our immigration laws should incite people to attack Ice agents and riot in the streets'. Democrats fired back with accusations of federal tyranny. Former vice-president Kamala Harris called the national guard deployment 'a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos' and part of a 'cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic'. The California Democratic congresspeople Sam Liccardo and Lateefah Simon focused on supporting immigrant communities. Liccardo warned that Trump's actions risk 'pushing our nation down a dangerous path toward tyranny', while Simon said that immigrant communities 'are not alone' and vowed to protect community rights. The senior Democratic congresswoman Pramila Jayapal condemned 'weaponizing the military against US citizens and immigrants alike'. The enforcement battle in Los Angeles has created an unusual dynamic where state and federal law enforcement agencies operate in the same area with different mandates, contributing to confusion and escalating tensions on the streets. But the confusion, mixed with Trump's heavy-handed approach, is causing some Democrats to echo calls for non-violence. 'If you are protesting please do it peacefully,' the California Democratic congressman Mike Thompson posted on X. 'We do not need to give this President and his administration any excuses to further escalate the situation.'
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump vs. California is the fight the White House wants
President Trump is getting the fight with California that he wants, as Democrats in the state criticize his decision to send the National Guard to Los Angeles without local approval to deal with protests surrounding raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The unfolding events hit at the heart of key issues that Trump basks in: Immigration and fighting liberal California Democrats. You can also add in law-and-order, as Trump and his team accuses California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other local officials of being too soft on demonstrators destroying property and setting cars on fire. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller on Sunday reposted several images meant to convey the chaos in L.A., including one showing huge plumes of smoke billowing from a burning vehicle as demonstrators watched, one with a Mexican flag. The caption to the tweet read 'Let's check in on how LAPD's management of the 'protests' is going,' and criticized Newsom's slamming of Trump's decision to send the guard. A second Miller retweet was from his White House colleague Taylor Budowich, who sent out a similar video of a masked protestor on a car surrounded by other burning cars and demonstrators in the streets. 'Democrat management,' the tweet said. Newsom has said California will sue the Trump administration over its deployment of the National Guard, while the White House maintains that Trump intervened at the right time to restore law and order and that the violent attacks had already escalated before he stepped in. 'Donald Trump has created the conditions you see on your TV tonight. He's exacerbated the conditions. He's, you know, lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire, ever since he announced he was taking over the National Guard — an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act,' Newsom said on MSNBC. Just a few days ago, Trump was battling negative coverage of his public feud with erstwhile ally Elon Musk. The violence in L.A. allowed him to rapidly shift gears, and put much of the focus on immigration even as his team pushed Congress to pass his signature legislation – which had triggered the battle with Musk. 'The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources. America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X, calling for Senate passage of the House-passed 'one, big beautiful bill' with its funding measures for border security. The story even served to bring Musk back into the fold, with the tech mogul sending a number of supportive messages of the president that criticized Newsom and demonstrators. Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Since then, ICE raids, arrests of migrants at immigration courts and lawsuits over deportations have been a major part of his first few months in office. His administration has blamed Democrats, especially former Biden, for allowing what they call an 'invasion' of migrants coming in at the U.S.-southern border and White House briefings have often begun with spotlighting a deported migrant who committed a crime in the U.S. The images of masked demonstrators with Mexican flags falls right into this argument. That the protests are in California is also good for Trump. Trump has flirted with the idea of fining or nixing federal funding for the state, lashing out earlier this month after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and win a high school track and field championship. He also blamed Newsom, who is widely considered to be eying a presidential bid, for the wildfires that raged in the Los Angeles area in January and made his first trip as president to California to meet with him and survey damage. Newsom then visited Trump at the White House in February about aid for wildfire victims. The White House is now blaming Newsom for the protests in Los Angeles, bashing him for suing the administration instead of focusing on solutions. 'Gavin Newsom's feckless leadership is directly responsible for the lawless riots and violent attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles. Instead of filing baseless lawsuits meant to score political points with his left-wing base, Newsom should focus on protecting Americans by restoring law and order to his state,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. Trump on Sunday didn't rule out using the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to deploy the military and federalize the National Guard in the event of an insurrection. He had considered invoking the law in his first term, during the 2020 protests over police brutality, but at the time officials like former Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back. 'We're going to have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden and his auto pen,' Trump said on Sunday. The president also said that if California officials stand in the way of federal officials deporting migrants, they will face federal charges. 'We're just going to see what happens. If we think there's a serious insurrection …we're going to have law and order,' he said. California Democrats are responding to Trump by calling on residents to not turn to violent while protesting, arguing that the president's move to bring in the national guard was meant to provoke the chaos. 'Angelenos — don't engage in violence and chaos. Don't give the administration what they want,' Mayor Karen Bass said on X. Similarly, Newsom warned other states about Trump federalizing the National Guard and accused him of escalating the situation. 'This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted,' Newsom said on X. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard. The order he signed doesn't just apply to CA. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing. We're suing him.'
