Los Angeles Times

The plastic bottle ban at SFO

- Ne of the main

Oreasons people object to bans on single-use plastic products is that they fear being inconvenie­nced. How do I get my groceries from the checkout to the car without those free plastic bags? How can I possibly consume a frosty beverage if restaurant­s stop handing out plastic straws? What if the wood pulp spork gives me splinters?

A more appropriat­e question might be, “Why is no one doing something about the fact that microparti­cles of plastic are seeping into the drinking water and food supply?” Yet convenienc­e too often trumps smart environmen­tal choices. For that reason, we’re heartened to see that San Francisco Internatio­nal Airport seems to have figured out how to shut down one of its most ubiquitous and pernicious sources of disposable plastic trash in a single swoop, and with very little inconvenie­nce to the roughly 58 million travelers who pass through its gates every year. It will do this by prohibitin­g its concession­s from selling water in singleuse plastic bottles, starting of Aug. 20.

Hang on — we know what you’re thinking. In fact, we had the same initial thought upon hearing about the latest bold idea from California’s most aggressive­ly progressiv­e big city: That it is the opposite of “very little inconvenie­nce” to deprive travelers of the ability to buy a bottle of flat or sparkling water when they aren’t allowed to bring their own supply through security. What are they supposed to do, suck down sugary sodas or lap up water from bathroom sinks?

But SFO has done two smart and necessary things to prepare for this change, which is part of its zero-waste strategy. First, to go along with the existing water fountains, the airport has installed about 100 refilling stations on both sides of the security checkpoint­s (compared with only about 15 at the vast Los Angeles Internatio­nal Airport) where travelers can get as much free filtered water as their reusable water bottles can hold. And second, it installed liquid pourout stations where travelers can empty their half-consumed bottles of Dasani and take them through security to fill up on the other

side. Otherwise, they’d have to toss them in the trash, which is what people have to do at most airports unless a potted plant is handy.

The immediate effect will be the eliminatio­n of an estimated 4 million plastic water bottles that would otherwise be sold each year, most of which would have ended up in the trash or littering the landscape. Even though California requires consumers to pay a 5- or 10-cent deposit on most bottled beverages, and even though most water bottles are shuttled to a recycling center, they may not actually be recycled. The internatio­nal market for plastic has cratered. It’s cheaper right now for manufactur­ers to make new plastic than to turn used plastic into something else.

Even if the airport concession­s simply switched to water in aluminum cans or glass bottles, that would still be better for the environmen­t, because healthy recycling markets remain in place for glass and aluminum. Also, they will be competing against the refilling stations’ water, which will be available at the attractive price point of zero.

One thing SFO could do to help travelers would be to make sure that retailers offer reasonably priced reusable bottles for sale, something like the $1 reusable plastic water bottle Starbucks rolled out a few years ago. Even though San Francisco caps the markup of products sold at the airport to just 10% above the market average cost, it doesn’t require concession tenants to stock anything other than high-end, pricey water bottles if they don’t want to.

We’d love to see Los Angeles Internatio­nal Airport, which is currently working on a sustainabi­lity plan to reach zero waste, pay attention to what SFO is doing, with an eye toward considerin­g something similar. Understand­ably it would be a much bigger lift for LAX, the world’s fourth-busiest airport, to ban plastic bottles. But with 87.5 million travelers a year, it could have a much bigger environmen­tal and social impact. If it goes without a hitch, it would provide LAX and other public venues — including sports stadiums, college campuses and malls — with a road map to reining in the growing pile of single-use plastic without invoking the all-powerful curse of inconvenie­nce.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States