Supporting our Product Stewardship Community During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

PSI is reaching out at this trying time because you are part of our close community. First and foremost, we hope that everyone is safe and healthy. Whether we have known you for two decades or two months – please know that we are thinking of you. Our thoughts are especially with those in the areas most impacted in the U.S. and our friends in Europe, as well as our colleagues in public health and medical services who are combating this pandemic on the front lines.

The novel Coronavirus crisis demonstrates very clearly the importance of government in our society. We are proud to see so many state and local governments doing everything they can to safeguard public health and to see government and industry working cooperatively to find solutions.

This crisis also drives home the importance of reserving precious government resources for the most important services that government provides, including emergency and public health services. We fight every day for an equitable system where the true cost of products is borne by the producers and consumers of those products, not the most vulnerable among us.

Over the years PSI has developed a strong remote working infrastructure, so we are not missing a beat. Our team has been working from home since last week and we remain focused on supporting you in any way we can. So please, don’t hesitate to be in touch.

Warmly,

The PSI Team

Scott, Amanda, Kristin, Suna, Sydney, Josh, & Susan

Who is PSI?

This question is one we continually challenge ourselves to answer so that we stay on the cutting edge of the U.S. product stewardship movement. As we embark on a new decade full of opportunity for EPR, we want to ensure that the research, projects, legislative models and laws that we craft continue to be relevant.

PSI reflects the strength of the individuals and entities who embody the movement. While we have evolved, we stay close to our inner core. We bring together multiple parties with diverse interests to develop comprehensive plans to solve big waste management challenges. We are problem-solvers who base our policy recommendations on sound science, experience, and peer review. We advocate for product stewardship solutions that are shaped by our long list of members and partners. We are systems thinkers who dissect problems and craft solutions from various angles – environmental, economic, technological, political, and communication with the public. We understand the big picture context as well as the individual parts of resource consumption problems. Above all, we have maintained an ethic of credibility and personal responsibility while leading the U.S. product stewardship movement for the past 20 years.

Members of the PSI team and the International Paint Recycling Association (IPRA) together at the 2019 North American Hazardous Materials Management Association Conference.

Like all movements, ours would not have taken hold without the energy, skills, and advocacy of thousands of people, including those government officials in the northwest – Oregon and Washington – who were the early pioneers. The success we have jointly achieved has required policy innovators in state and local governments who risked agency rebuke to forge beyond the status quo. It took corporate talent who leveraged their social capital to look beyond pure profit to engage with others. And it took environmental activists who could share an agenda with other players to achieve joint goals.

A panel at the 2018 U.S. Product Stewardship Conference

At PSI’s inaugural conference in December 2000, more than 100 state and local government officials from 20 states came to Boston to learn about a new concept for holding product manufacturers responsible for financing and managing post-consumer products. That meeting sparked a national movement.

Today, 119 EPR laws have been passed in 33 states on 14 products, and 2019 was a banner year for the U.S. product stewardship movement. A record 50 EPR bills were introduced in 16 state legislatures across the country. Of those bills, 12 passed into law, one committed a legislature to introducing a bill in 2020, and four mandated studies that include EPR as the central solution.

2020 promises to be a critical year for the movement. Packaging bills will be introduced or discussed in at least eight states, and EPR bills on pharmaceuticals, paint, carpet, mattresses, artificial turf, and batteries are already being actively debated. And PSI is right in the middle of it all. We now look forward to the future with renewed passion for progress.

On September 8-10, in Portland, Oregon, PSI will celebrate our 20th Anniversary at the national U.S. Product Stewardship Forum. We are already hearing from colleagues who plan to attend from across the U.S., as well as from Germany, France, England, and Chile. We will acknowledge our roots, assess the growing U.S. and global EPR movements, and plan for the next 20 years of growth. We hope to see you there.

 

A Letter from Dave Galvin, PSI President Emeritus: What PSI means to the Product Stewardship Movement

by Dave Galvin,

President Emeritus, Product Stewardship Institute
First President, North American Hazardous Materials Management Association
Formerly with King County Local Hazardous Waste Program, WA

One of my grounding work philosophies was to innovate locally while coordinating nationally and even internationally (“think global, act local” we were told in the 1970s) for all of my 40 years working for Seattle Metro and King County.  We can learn from each other, but we have to be willing to innovate locally with a grounded view as to what is going on nationally and internationally, and how we can both learn from others and influence others.  I spent my career following those principals:  work locally to do the best job we could while coordinating nationally to learn from others and to influence others to keep us all moving in the right direction.  This yin-yang approach is, I believe, key to innovation and positive change at the local government level.

It was critically important for me to have a group such as PSI in order to learn from others around the country and beyond as well as to influence national policy direction.  Local governments can’t do these big policy lifts alone, they need coordinated help from others around the country and even beyond, such as the European Union.  Yet local governments have the flexibility to enact innovative polities that are more difficult to enact up the food chain.

PSI serves as the unique organization made up of state and local governments that helps us at the local and state levels to do the best we can with progressive policy issues related to product stewardship while coordinating nationally and internationally for the best results.  It is actually a conservative approach:  let local governments and states innovate, then learn from these models to develop national policy.

PSI is a model for positive policy development related to solid waste management, recycling and product stewardship initiatives.  We need to invest in PSI in order to keep the momentum for positive change:  to maximize recycling, and to shift the paradigm so that producers of waste are expected to pay for and run take-back systems for the wastes their products produce, from packaging to the end-of-life products themselves.  We need to keep pushing for these universal, global, ecological concepts as we deal with day-to-day politics.

I have enjoyed my 3+ decades of association with Scott Cassel and PSI, including serving as PSI board President for more than ten years.  PSI is the KEY organization that can integrate what we have learned over the past 40+ years, assess the current climate nationally and internationally, and lead progressive policy initiatives within receptive states and nationally as politics allow.

Please support and participate in PSI’s programs.  If we wish to fully address climate change, we need to address how we deal with wastes.  The sooner we can achieve a one-to-one take back system such as advocated by McDonough and Braungart’s classic tome from 2002, “Cradle to Cradle,” the better.  We need to do better than today’s reality.  We need to reach for the sky, for what will actually result in a sustainable future.

The Product Stewardship Institute has served as a compass for the past 20 years regarding a sustainable model for product design and waste management.  Let’s continue to push for this ideal in order to generate enough initiative locally and with states to influence the national and world view.  Product manufacturers need to take full responsibility for the life cycle of their outputs, including taking back and re-manufacturing end-of-life products they sell.  The sooner we can move to this conservative paradigm, the better!

Thanks for your support of PSI and its initiatives.  The more we can advocate for full product stewardship, the more our environment will benefit locally as well as across this fragile globe.

Tribute to Harold Siegel – PSI Advisory Council Member

Harold_Siegel_Profile_Imageby Scott Cassel

Harold Siegel was my favorite conservative. He was also a PSI Advisory Council member…my brother’s father-in-law, and my friend.

Harold passed away at age 89 on March 20 in New York City. He was still working at Excelsior Graphics, the business he built to prosperity. Harold was a Patriotic lover of this country, a great pool player, and someone who always listened to the other side.

We bonded one night years ago after seeing his grandson, my nephew, perform at a college play. At a bar that night over beers, we discussed the need to take action to protect the environment. I learned he was an environmentalist, believing companies should take responsibility for reducing the impacts of the products they put on the market.

Contrary to many conservatives, Harold saw no contradiction in a free market operating under needed regulation, which levels the playing field for all competitors. He gave me advice on how to frame issues so conservatives could support extended producer responsibility laws. I can’t say those strategies always worked, but many people don’t see the world as Harold did.

The last time I spoke to Harold was at his granddaughter’s (my niece’s) wedding only a few weeks ago. He was in the hospital for the week leading up to the wedding, but rallied to be present at the big day. At the brunch the next day, he recounted what PSI was doing from the recent newsletter he read. He read them all, and remembered what he read.

We were very different people. But in his decency, Harold engaged with me and others whose views were different. Through those conversations, we found important issues on which we agreed, and we built a strong relationship around environmental issues, which only strengthened our family ties.

My favorite book as a kid was Harold and the Purple Crayon. It was, aptly, about a kid named Harold who used a purple crayon to draw his way through life. Whatever he needed and wanted, he drew it, and thus made his own reality. I believe Harold Siegel saw his own world in this way. He had a kind approach that others found attractive, and he manifested this approach in the world.

I will miss him greatly, and I hope that his legacy of kindness, compassion, and willingness to engage with those with opposing views can be a lesson for us all.

Remembering John Waffenschmidt

by Scott Cassel

On Wednesday, December 5, John Waffenschmidt died peacefully, and unexpectedly, in his sleep. As the PSI team struggles with the sudden loss of a close colleague and friend, many fond memories of John have surfaced.

John was passionate about everything – mountain climbing, lifecycle analysis, environmental justice, science, and energy-from-waste technology. He spontaneously sang and danced at our conference, and would correct anyone misusing the term “incineration.”

Product Stewardship Institute Conference

Photo by Robert Klein. Left to right: Fenton Rood (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality), Scott Cassel (PSI), and John Waffenschmidt (Covanta) enjoying PSI’s 2017 Product Stewardship Forum in Boston.

John brought a unique blend of talents and interests to his role as PSI’s point person at Covanta for a decade-long partnership between our organizations. The partnership is, in some ways, an unlikely one between an environmental organization and a waste management company. However, John found multiple ways we could work together, including the time he came to me with the business concept of destroying waste pharmaceuticals left in medicine cabinets, at no cost to government, in Covanta’s municipal waste-to-energy plants.

To determine if our government members would support this concept, PSI convened two technical webinars and a briefing paper. John presented for Covanta and even offered a slot to a competitor that operates hazardous waste facilities. After rigorous questioning from state air quality regulators and others, two PSI state members stuck to their policy of hazardous waste incineration for waste medicines, but many others approved the use of solid waste combustion. This project helped pave the way for Covanta’s Rx4Safety program, which has provided free destruction for residents and governments of over 5 million pounds of waste medications.

John and I worked closely on many other projects through the years, including joint presentations to state officials in support of EPR legislation and a mattress stewardship dialogue in Connecticut we facilitated and Covanta seed funded, which led to three state EPR laws for mattresses.

My last conversation with John was a follow-up call he made immediately after a phone conversation in which he sensed a tinge of concern in my voice. He wanted to make sure that what he had conveyed to me was understood. He wanted to smooth out a minor ripple in our communications. I assured him we were good, and that our relationship was solid. That call left me with a strong feeling of humanity. John sensed something was not quite right, and he acted on it. His follow up call took 30 seconds, but it is the lasting feeling I have of John – of honesty, friendship, and peace.

Producer Responsibility: Seeking Leaders in the Textile Industry

by Scott Cassel and Kristin Aldred Cheek

blue-pattern-texture-macroLast fall’s textiles summit was a watershed moment in efforts to address textile waste in the U.S. Organized by the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), New York Product Stewardship Council (NYPSC), New York State Association for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling (NYSAR3), and New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I), the event brought together more than 200 textile designers, brand owners, used clothing collectors, recyclers, and government officials for the first time. The focus: improving the sustainability of the textile industry throughout the supply chain, including reducing the amount of textiles disposed and keeping millions of dollars in valuable materials circulating in our economy.

One point of general agreement at the summit was the need to move away from a “fast fashion” mentality and, in its place, build a repair-reuse-recycle mindset among businesses and consumers. Unfortunately, nearly one year later, leadership from brand owners and manufacturers remains largely absent.

Upstream, there are voluntary initiatives to reduce the environmental impacts of the textiles industry. Researchers are developing new methods to separate and extract fibers from used textiles, which would enable companies to recover the most valuable material and turn it into new products. Downstream, there are often-cited projects by companies like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher to repair, reuse, and recycle clothing.

Such efforts are examples of the varied possibilities for a more sustainable approach, but they shouldn’t distract us from the reality that the textiles industry as a whole is the second largest polluting industry in the world after oil and gas. While we wait for fiber recovery technology to be refined and brought to scale, or for voluntary efforts to grow to a meaningful level, the amount of textiles disposed continues to climb. A record 13 million tons of textiles went to landfills or combustion facilities in 2015 alone.

The technology to reuse, recycle, and repurpose many textiles already exists. Countless organizations and businesses already understand the value of recovering what’s currently being wasted and are clamoring for more material.

What’s missing is the properly funded infrastructure for collection and processing.

By requiring all textile manufacturers to finance and manage the post-consumer textiles they sell into the market, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies can achieve the efficient reuse and recycling of a high percentage of scrap textiles. EPR policies create an organized structure for cooperation and communication that is based on financial incentives and social responsibility. These systems create a level playing field among producers so that all players compete equally. At the same time, EPR lifts much of the burden from taxpayers who are currently funding disposal, regardless of their personal textile purchase and disposal habits.

There is a huge opportunity here for brand owners. Over the long haul, economies across the globe are heading toward more transparency, more substantive corporate responsibility, and more circularity. Companies that take responsibility for the lifecycle of their products will have the fewest risks and the greatest likelihood of increasing their market share. Moreover, companies that seize a leadership role today and engage in the process of developing an EPR system will be setting the bar for themselves and their competitors and defining product stewardship in the textiles industry for years to come.

To develop effective policy, there needs to be a facilitator that can develop a consensus on the extent of the problem, the goals sought by those with an interest in the outcome, the barriers to achieving those goals, and the solutions to overcoming those barriers. There is a roadmap for success. Over the past two decades, PSI has facilitated the development of many effective EPR policy models, and today our members are interested in the development of a policy model for textiles.

Governments are preparing to tackle the issue. Manufacturers and brand owners need to bring their knowledge and interests to the table and lead the industry to the solution. If your organization is interested in being part of the conversation, contact PSI’s Kristin Aldred Cheek at (617) 236-8293.

In Response: The Conflict of Interest That Is Killing Recycling

The Product Stewardship Institute’s Scott Cassel and Megan Byers respond to the New York Times’ August 15th Opinion piece, The Conflict of Interest That Is Killing Recycling

scrap-metal-trash-landfill-smA crisis can be painful. It can also be an opportunity for much-needed change.

Recent trade restrictions by China have troubled many U.S. industries, as well as municipal recycling programs that rely on Chinese markets. Shrinking markets for recovered material have raised municipal recycling costs. As a result, some recycling programs have closed, while others have stockpiled or disposed of recyclables the public expects to be turned into new products.

The fluctuation of recycling markets is nothing new. But for 50 years, we have failed to recognize that recycling is stifled by an uneven playing field.

It is time to disrupt the current recycling economic model, which relies on taxpayers and municipal governments to pick up the cost of managing waste products and packaging from which companies reap the profits. To date, U.S. corporations have dodged their responsibility to manage their products after consumers use them.

On the surface, it is often cheaper to dispose of used products and packaging than to recycle them (though landfill tipping fees are rising). However, in doing so, we fail to account for the much costlier externalities. In reality, brand owners and consumers are not paying the full cost of production and consumption, which includes environmental and social damages such as the need to continually mine virgin resources for the manufacture of new products. Instead, we experience these costs in the form of water, air, and land pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change. The cost to clean the water, air, and land is much greater than that to prevent contamination in the first place.

Governments often establish recycling programs to reduce litter and waste to improve quality of life for their citizens. Unfortunately, communities are at a huge disadvantage compared to brand owners that benefit from the throw-away economy while paying none of the waste management costs. Furthermore, most waste management companies like things just the way they are now. The status quo allows them to protect their investments in disposal technologies, and they enjoy powerful contractual leverage against municipalities and individual residents.

The real recycling tragedy is not just that municipalities use different bins and labels. It is that every community collects different materials, educates their residents in different ways, and has separate contracts with garbage and recycling haulers that provide different services and incentives. This inefficiency and lack of municipal cohesion is the basis for the recycling and garbage disposal crisis in the U.S.

There is hope. Countries across the world require brand owners – such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, General Mills, Pepsi, Amazon, and Walmart – to fund and manage the recycling of materials they put on the market. These companies, which are the same ones fighting change in the U.S., hire a non-profit to operate a network of collection and processing facilities with lean government oversight. This network leverages existing infrastructure and provides options for municipalities. These “producer responsibility” systems collect the same set of materials in every jurisdiction. They provide the same educational materials and symbols, with appropriate regional nuance. They have the same instructions and standards for municipalities and other collectors to keep contamination low.

And they get results. British Columbia, for example, has achieved a 75 percent recovery rate for packaging and printed paper, as compared to the 55 percent average in the U.S. for the same materials. The Canadian province has also reached an enviable contamination rate of 6.5 percent, compared to an average of about 15 percent in the U.S. These systems are in place in Europe (for over 30 years), across Canada (for up to 15 years), and now in Israel, Japan, South Africa, and an increasing number of other countries.

Well-crafted extended producer responsibility frameworks also reward innovation, especially for companies that use less material, switch to readily-recyclable options, and incorporate a higher percentage of recycled content in packaging.

The time has come to bring producer responsibility for packaging to the United States. Consumer product companies and waste management companies have valid concerns about change. But municipalities and taxpayers can no longer bear the sole financial burden for a problem created by societal consumption and brand owners’ poor packaging choices.

If we listen to one another, we can solve this problem together. We must understand the problems created by waste, share common goals, collectively overcome barriers, and agree on the solutions available.

It takes will, but it is long past time to start.

EPR and the China Sword

by Scott Cassel and Kristin Aldred Cheek

In July 2017, China formally announced new import restrictions on recyclables, which came into effect in 2018. U.S. municipalities are now feeling the Sword’s sting. A lack of investment in domestic recycling infrastructure, dependence on other nations to accept contaminated recyclables, and failure to account for the full lifecycle costs of packaging have resulted in significantly increased costs for local governments and taxpayers. China’s policy shift revealed flaws in U.S. recycling systems, which currently rely on voluntary action on the part of packaging producers.

In British Columbia, however, where an extended producer responsibility (EPR) law is in place for packaging and paper products, the effects of the Sword are muted. There is now increasing interest in EPR for packaging in the U.S. – which will only grow as the impacts of China’s policies continue to unfold.

Failure to place responsibility on producers through effective EPR legislation has left many local governments and taxpayers in a difficult bind across the U.S. From Massachusetts to Oregon, municipalities are suspending all or portions of their recycling operations and seeking permission where needed to landfill recyclable items. Twenty-two municipalities in Washington recently granted a waste management company permission to landfill post-consumer paper that had been piling up. In Minnesota, where state law forbids landfilling or burning recyclables, waste managers and regulators are discussing the possibility of a waiver for the first time. In places where recycling contracts are expiring, municipalities suddenly find themselves absorbing enormous costs in their budgets for something that used to generate revenue, or raising residents’ recycling and waste disposal rates.

Meanwhile, BC’s EPR program has transformed the collection and recycling of packaging and paper products into an integrated province-wide system that has achieved one of the lowest contamination rates in North America. Instead of each municipality collecting its own set of recyclables and educating their residents in different ways, BC has developed a cohesive system that spurred investments in local processing capacity, achieving the economies of scale that packaging brand owners need to meet their ambitious recycled content and recyclability goals. Well-functioning European EPR systems – for instance, in Belgium, Spain, and Italy – have achieved similar success.

U.S. municipalities have been doing their best within the limits of their individual jurisdictions, but their efforts are not enough in the face of growing plastics pollution, increasing complexity in packaging, and shrinking export markets for recyclables. Without carefully planned, significant change in product stewardship policies and practices for packaging, U.S. governments, recyclers, and brand owners will not achieve their goals. It is time for U.S. policymakers and businesses to seriously examine how EPR programs can achieve the results they seek. That’s why the Product Stewardship Institute is reconvening packaging EPR strategic calls this fall for our Full Members. If you would like to be involved in our work on packaging EPR, contact Kristin Aldred Cheek at kristin@productstewardship.us, or (617) 236-8293.

Consumers Spoke and the Message is Clear: Phone Book Publishers Must Take Opt-Out Requests Seriously or Pursue Opt-In Instead

by Megan Byers

Old_Phonebooks_litterAbout a decade ago, at the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI)’s urging, the Local Search Association (which represents phone book publishers) created a website where residents can choose to halt phone book delivery.

In the past year, PSI documented more than 29,000 opt-outs generated through our Phone Book Opt-Out Toolkit, a trove of public outreach materials that makes promoting opt-out as easy as copy-and-paste for governments, environmental organizations, and concerned citizens.

We asked people to rate how easy or difficult it is to opt out on the industry-run opt-out website via an anonymous survey. 74 percent of respondents provided additional feedback to elaborate on their experience. Here’s what we learned:

  1. 69 percent of respondents found the opt-out website “very easy” or “easy” to use.
    PSI commends the industry for creating a website that is easy for many people to use.

 “The site was easy to use and the link easy to share so more people could reduce the number of unwanted phone books! Thanks.”

  1. But over a third of respondents thought the process was too long and confusing. Some even gave up.
    The website does not make it clear from the start that opting out is a multi-step process. Counter intuitively, you have to register to unregister from phone book distribution. Common criticisms include that the opt-out process is too time consuming, the website is not mobile friendly, and it is annoying to create an account. Some respondents said that it would be easier to opt in than opt out, and that it felt like the website was intentionally designed to make people feel uncomfortable and confused, thus preventing completed opt-outs.

“You asked for a lot of information and it was time consuming to have to wait for the email so I could complete the opt out.”

“I gave up because it was so complicated. At some point I needed a password to register.”

  1. One in five respondents who gave additional feedback were wary of giving up personal information like their name, email address, and phone number in addition to their address.
    The opt-out website promises that all information required is used only for verification purposes. Still, some survey respondents were skeptical.

 “I hate giving out my name, personal phone in order to opt out.”

  1. 40 percent of respondents who gave additional feedback reported that it didn’t work – they still got phone books after opting out.
    It is notable that PSI’s survey did not ask about opt-out outcomes (after all, we merely intended to capture feedback about the opt-out process). Nevertheless, many respondents wrote that phone book deliveries continued after opt-out.

 “I opted out – about 5 years ago – yet I continue to get phone books delivered to me (including another one this weekend)! After each incident, I’ve directly emailed my contacts at Local Search Association and reported the unwanted delivery. Each time, they’ve reached out to the specific publisher to “address the issue,” but despite this, I continue to get phone books. Very frustrating. It doesn’t appear to be working due to either publishers not providing their delivery people with opt-out lists or the delivery people just ignoring the lists if they are provided. So 4 years of unwanted deliveries (post-opt-out) and counting…”

PSI applauds the phone book industry for supporting an opt-out website that most people find easy to use. Now, we urge improvements that would make opting out easy, accessible, and comfortable for all. The feedback PSI has gathered is a good place to start.

We fully recognize that delivering directories to some buildings but not others has very real challenges and requires time, effort, investment, technology, and good communication with distributors. But if any other service failed to do what it promised almost half the time, it would quickly be replaced. If the industry’s opt-out system can’t actually honor half of the requests they receive, we must ask: isn’t there a better way?

It is time for the Local Search Association to implement an opt-in system. This way, those who want phone books could easily opt into delivery by signing up online, mailing in a slip, or calling the publisher. Those who don’t use phone books would avoid environmental and economic impacts while keeping their homes clutter-free. Furthermore, local businesses could more accurately assess how to best spend their advertising budget and target their phone book ads to the right audience. To sustain advertising revenue, publishers should expand and improve online offerings to make YellowPages.com the number one stop for consumers in need of local business information.

Phone books should be delivered only to consumers who request them – just like any other product.

Until an opt-in system is available, the best option to stop phone book delivery is to opt out. If you still receive a phone book despite opting out, we encourage you to call both the publisher and Neg Norton, President of the Local Search Association, which runs YellowPagesOptOut.com.

Look in your phone book for a publisher name and find them online, or browse our list of top publishers. Mr. Norton can be reached at (908) 286-2385 or Neg.Norton@localsearchassociation.org.

Questions? Contact PSI’s Megan Byers.

In Response: The Right Way to Remember Rachel Carson

The Product Stewardship Institute’s Scott Cassel responds to the New Yorker’s March 26th article, The Right Way to Remember Rachel Carson

Jill Lepore’s The Shorebird speaks volumes about Rachel Carson’s love of the Maine intertidal. It also covers her scientific expertise in biology that she parlayed into a job at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, her full body of nature writing (rejections included), and her secret relationship with Dorothy Freeman from whom she got tremendous support for her methodical, sound, and truth to power Silent Spring ode to chemical companies. Lepore paints a picture of Carson as persistent, politically savvy, and a rock solid caregiver for family members whose lives fell into her lap. Carson’s keen observations and love of nature enabled her to amass knowledge she could not disown about DDT and its impact on the ecological chain of life. It is much clearer to me now how Carson’s robust life experiences enabled her to be the one to set the environmental movement on its way. Thanks to The New Yorker for publishing excerpts of Silent Spring when others would not, and for keeping her spirit alive with Lepore’s piece, as the Trump Administration drains beauty from the intertidal swamp.