The recycling rules that could actually make a huge difference, but are probably doomed

Picture it now: It’s you, in the faded light of your kitchen, dutifully rinsing out that plastic container that you didn’t even want to get but the store gave to you anyway, carefully dabbing it dry, and then placing it in its proper recycling container.

Rejoice, plastic container scrubbers: A new federal bill introduced on Tuesday could make your diligent recycling efforts a thing of the past.

Well, maaaaaybe.

The bill, called the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act, was introduced by Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico and Representative Alan Lowenthal of California. It's huge in scope: The bill is calling for the kinds of bans and limitations — like the reduced production of certain single-use plastics — that have yet to receive this level of attention at the federal level.

A bill like this would have big implications, but it's probably too early to celebrate.

In an election year, and with no Republican co-sponsors, the bill has slim chance of becoming a law. But for everyone looking for an end to the mounting plastic crisis, there's a plus side here. Even if it doesn't pass, the bill brings crucial ideas to the forefront of the national conversation around plastic waste.

Some of these ideas have already been discussed — and implemented — at the local and state levels. But a large part of the bill's significance is in its ability to envision a roadmap for getting these kinds of policies rolled out on a much larger scale.

Here's a breakdown of three of the biggest solutions it presents.

1. A shift toward producer responsibility

The bill's primary ideological contribution comes in the form of a shift in accountability. Currently, there's a huge cultural emphasis on individual choice with respect to single-use plastic. (Think about the amount of side-eye anyone still using a plastic straw gets at your local coffeeshop.)

Considering the scope of the plastic crisis, those behind the bill are shifting the blame more fully to the source: the companies making and selling single-use plastic items.

Instead of focusing on individual choices, the bill would require those producing these types of products (which would include "packaging, containers, food service products, and paper") to "design, manage, and finance programs to collect and process product waste."

Companies would have to pay based on the kinds of things they're selling and producing, meaning that companies causing more pollution would have to pay more as well. (Right now, this burden falls largely on taxpayers.) While the idea of producer responsibility isn't new, it has yet to be suggested with the range offered by the bill, says Alex Truelove, the zero waste program director for U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), one of the many advocacy organizations supporting the bill.

"I hope this narrative is liberating to people," Truelove said. "This isn't about every consumer being a perfect consumer. I'm sure you've found yourself in a situation where you got unwanted plastic. We're looking at the people making the plastic; we're looking at more comprehensive ways of going about it. [Currently,] the producers of this stuff, they have no real responsibility to be less wasteful."

2. A pause on new plastics facilities

The bill also demands a temporary halt to the creation of new plastic-producing facilities.

With this pause, the legislation explains, environmental agencies will have more time to investigate "the cumulative impacts of new and expanded plastic-producing facilities on the air, water, climate, and communities" before those agencies issue permits for these facilities.

These facilities can cause more pollution than is sometimes understood.

The fossil fuel industry is becoming dependent on the production of plastics. That relationship is perilous for our planet and our livelihoods, since it only compounds the pollution caused by plastics: Over 99% of plastics are made from chemicals sourced in fossil fuels, according to research from the Center for International Environmental Law.

This relationship can get overlooked, Truelove points out, when so much of the conversation around plastic pollution focuses on what happens to plastic after it's been produced, rather than getting to the source of its production.

A shift in focus from the first part of those three well-known Rs — reuse and recycle — to the contributing origin — reduce — would mark another important ideological change that the bill could spur on a wider scale.

3. A phase-out of top polluting products

Finally, if the bill were to be enacted, Truelove points out that one of its most immediate and efficient results would be the widespread elimination of items known to cause intense pollution.

The bill calls for the phasing out of items that are now widely understood not to be recycled at all; as mentioned in the language of the bill, a staggeringly large percentage of plastic waste in the U.S. doesn't actually get recycled. Prohibitions called for in the legislation would apply to: "lightweight plastic carryout bags, food and drinkware from expanded polystyrene, plastic stirrers, and plastic utensils." Additionally, plastic straws would be available only via request.

In the last few years, a growing number of local and state governments have enacted similar bans.

"To nobody's surprise, bans work," Truelove said. "One you ban something, that's it. It's banned."

Should the newly introduced federal bill actually become a law, it would mean that the elimination of these plastic products would become even more widespread.

"Almost the entire bill is new in that [the ideas within it] haven't been introduced at a federal level," Truelove said.

And as the bill awaits further action, its ideas can still resonate. Down the road, this might mean even more acceptance of some of its more visionary concepts.

"It's totally commonsense. I hesitate to call it revolutionary," Truelove said. "That said, it's still the first time that this is being done at a federal level. It feels like a watershed moment."