Council to consider changes for waste disposal contracts

Written by

Austin Monitor
By Jack Craver
Original article here

A series of recommendations made by a City Council working group seeks to address concerns from environmentalists and private waste haulers about how the city chooses the companies it pays to pick up and dispose of waste generated by its own employees and departments, from wastepaper bins at City Hall to giant piles of sludge created by wastewater treatment facilities.

For now, the main outcome of the Waste Management Policy Working Group, which included four Council members and a number of industry stakeholders and environmental activists, is a proposal to make changes to the city’s Anti-Lobbying Ordinance.

Council Member Leslie Pool, who chaired the working group, said that she plans to bring forward a draft ordinance in the coming weeks that will clarify the types of communications that haulers with existing contracts are allowed to have with city staff and city officials if they are also bidding on new contracts.

In addition, the proposed ordinance will reduce the penalties imposed on contractors found to have violated the policy. Currently, violators can be barred from bidding for city contracts, a consequence that some have argued is far too harsh a punishment for what in many cases could simply be a mistake or misunderstanding by an employee of what in many cases are small businesses.

“The idea of locking people out of city business because of a couple of mistakes is a dangerous thing,” said Andrew Dobbs, an organizer for Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Texas Disposal Systems, a prominent waste hauler, has declined to bid on a number of waste contracts recently, arguing that the Anti-Lobbying Ordinance prevents it from effectively making its case to be awarded the deal. Texas Disposal Systems representatives have nevertheless attended Council meetings to argue against approving contracts with other companies, earning it criticism for bullying and obstructionism from those other companies.

In response to the lobbying concerns, Council voted in April to temporarily suspend the anti-lobbying ordinance for waste contracts. The working group recommends that the suspension remain in place until Council revises the ordinance.

The working group also suggests the city tweak its solicitation policies to favor small, local businesses. Currently, a major national company with operations within city limits may be getting more credit for being “local” than a small business based just outside of the city.

Other recommendations from the working group focused on getting waste contracts back in line with Council’s stated environmental policy objectives. Over the last year, Council has rejected a number of contracts after objections were raised by the Zero Waste Advisory Commission, the citizen panel charged with guiding the city toward its goal of dramatically reducing the amount of landfill waste it generates.

In February, for instance, Council unanimously rejected a $7.7 million contract with Republic Services, a Phoenix-based hauler, despite its recommendation by city staff.

One of the principal objections was that the company proposed dumping the waste in the Austin Community Landfill, a site in Northeast Austin that has been a longtime target of complaints from nearby residents and whose controversial expansion Travis County tried unsuccessfully to block in court.

In addition, Texas Disposal Systems objected to the size of the contract, arguing that the city was trying to consolidate a number of different waste services under one contract, departing from the tradition of divvying up the city waste hauling business among a number of different companies.

The working group did not issue a recommendation on the merits of consolidating more contracts but instead called for more analysis of the costs and benefits of such a move.

“Consolidation may create economies of scale and better reporting capacity; however, it also may have undesired effects on the ability of small vendors to compete,” the document stated.

One option that nobody at City Hall appears to be considering is letting the city deal with its waste on its own, rather than contracting with private haulers. The city’s own garbage collection service, Austin Resource Recovery, only serves single-family residences and multifamily properties with four units or fewer. As a result, the city has to hire private haulers to pick up its trash, just like commercial and multifamily properties.

Kaiba White, a member of the Zero Waste Advisory Commission who works on energy and environmental policy for Public Citizen, a progressive advocacy group, noted that the city would have to make a big capital investment in equipment and vehicles if it wanted to do its trash collection in-house or to expand its services to apartment buildings and private businesses. But in the long term, she said, the city might be better off, financially and environmentally.

“Right now people in single-family housing receive various educational outreach about recycling and composting,” she said. “Whereas people in multifamily housing, it’s up to the company. You’re lucky if you have the service and you’re lucky if (the Dumpster’s) not filled up right away.”

Dobbs said an expansion of Austin Resource Recovery’s current responsibilities would be a non-starter politically. The balance the city has currently struck with private haulers was “the product of years of stakeholder engagement,” he said. For the city to change course would be seen as a “rollback of all the efforts.”

Pool also dismissed the idea, noting the upfront cost to the city and the prospect of undercutting local businesses.

“Frankly there’s an industry in Austin that’s been doing it for decades,” she said, “and it would have a significant impact on their livelihood.”

This story has been corrected to include the fact that ARR serves multifamily properties with four units or fewer. Photo by David Villa made available through a Creative Commons license.

What Environmentalists Are Hoping For In A New City Recycling Contract

Written by

Houston Public Media
By Abner Fletcher

The City of Houston’s recycling contract ends in 2018. Some environmentalists are hoping for some specific things to be a part of the next one.

In the coming days, Mayor Sylvester Turner and the Houston City Council are set to hear proposals from recycling companies that could form a new recycling contract with the city once the current one ends in 2018.

The advocacy group Texas Campaign for the Environment has been following the process closely and is eager to see Houston take advantage of the economic incentives of recycling.

Joshua Zinn spoke with Rosanne Barone, the Houston Program Director for TCE, about the current state of recycling in Houston, the possibilities of implementing a Zero Waste Plan, and what her organization would like to see come out of a new recycling contract.

In Houston’s Fifth Ward, Concern Over Superfund Site Grows With EPA Budget Cuts

Written by

Houston Press
By Dianna Wray
Original article here

Houston-area activists gathered on a street corner in Fifth Ward on Tuesday, just across from the Many Diversified Interests Inc. Superfund site — which is currently under redevelopment after the federal Environmental Protection Agency allowed years to pass without cleaning up the lead-contaminated site — to announce that they are joining organizers from across the country in influencing how the EPA deals with the Superfund program.

The location of the announcement was no accident. Instead of cleaning up MDI — a 35-acre tract of land that was the location of a foundry from 1926 to 1992 that left the the site, along with the groundwater beneath it, laced with lead — the EPA took the site off its priority list in 2010, and allowed a developer to get to work redeveloping it.

Now, as the construction on the site continues, local activists are pointing to the MDI site as an example of what may happen if Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator, follows through on his plan to cut $330 million of the Superfund program’s $1.1. billion budget, a reduction of 30 percent.

“Scott Pruitt’s plan to streamline the Superfund process in favor of cutting costs will lead to incomplete cleanups of contaminated neighborhoods, as demonstrated in the past at sites like MDI in Houston’s 5th Ward,” Rosanne Barone, the Houston program director for Texas Campaign for the Environment, said in a statement. “Painted as a quick way to boost economic development, Pruitt’s recommendations are more akin to a fast track to injustice.”

Cutting the Superfund program’s budget may not sound like a big deal, but that’s just because you haven’t been up close and personal, wondering if you are drinking lead-laced groundwater from the MDI site or dealing with any of the toxic sludge leaking out from the San Jacinto Waste Pits or any of the other 13 federally designated Superfund sites in Harris County.

Pruitt has talked a good game since he was confirmed as the Trump administration’s EPA head earlier this year. Pruitt has said that he is intent on focusing on one of the most important missions the EPA is tasked with, cleaning up the toxic, sometimes carcinogenic Superfund sites that dot the landscape of the United States.

In fact, Pruitt has stated that cleaning up Superfund sites would be returned “to their rightful place at the center of the EPA’s core mission.” He even put together a task force last month to get advice on how to handle Superfund, the federal program created more than 30 years ago to fund the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances and pollutants.

However, it seems Pruitt has been talking through his hat when it comes to the Superfund program, because despite all the promises of a real focus on Superfund sites, the proposed 2018 budget includes those massive cuts to the program’s actual budget.

Local Superfund organizers were wary but hopeful when Pruitt initially supported a focus on the Superfund sites — after all, this is the man who rivaled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the record of lawsuits filed against the EPA — but when they learned about the budget cuts, they went to work.

So the plan was cooked up to launch the People’s Task Force, an entity aimed at pushing their own recommendations for the Superfund program based on their collective years of boots-on-the-ground experience in dealing with the problems at various sites. Based on the proposed budget cuts, area activists believe that Pruitt will also be inclined to use cost-cutting measures like the ones employed with the MDI site.

“Environmental justice communities have long been forced to contend with the negative impacts of lax environmental clean-up and lax enforcement thereof in communities of color,” Juan Parras, director of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, said in a statement. “It is unconscionable that the EPA and TCEQ are comfortable with members of our community being exposed to elevated levels of lead when, as stated by the CDC, any level of lead is unsafe.”

The Reverend James Caldwell also sounded off, pointing to the MDI site as the standard Texans can expect if the Superfund budget is actually cut in 2018. “The MDI site was contaminated with lead, and elevated levels have been identified in the community. This is not only an environmental justice concern but one of public health,” Caldwell stated. “This site was not properly addressed; this is a failure of the EPA, TCEQ and these partnership agreements. This was a cost-saving tactic. We cannot sacrifice our communities or our children. We must take a stand and say enough is enough.”

There’s no telling if Pruitt or anyone else in the EPA will actually take any of the advice the People’s Task Force comes up with, but at least if the EPA decides to sell the San Jacinto Waste Pits, for example, instead of going through the costly planned cleanup, nobody in the agency will be able to say that he was not warned that kind of approach could be a bad idea.

Clarification, August 3: Local activists are concerned about the groundwater below and around the MDI Site, which the EPA has continued to monitor, not necessarily the site itself.

Members of Fifth Ward community protest budget cuts to superfund site

Written by

CW39 Houston
By G. Trudeau
Original article here

HOUSTON – In Houston’s historic Fifth Ward, neighbors worry that politics and profits are taking priority over cleaning up their community.

“We’re boxed in with toxic hazards, and that is unacceptable,” says Joetta Stevenson with the Fifth Ward Super Neighborhood Civic Club. “To prioritize quick development over the full cleanup of a contaminated neighborhood is not just only gentrification at its worst, it’s environmental racism.”

The M.D.I. Superfund site is a 35-acre tract of land contaminated from a foundry that went bankrupt in 1992.

“A history of contamination with lead followed this entire community starting with the relocation of Bruce Elementary where every single child in the elementary school had elevated levels of lead,” says Yvette Arellano with the environmental group T.E.J.A.S.

And just because you don’t call the downtown area home, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be concerned.

“In this case we’re talking about soil, we’re talking about a city that when it rains, water stands, or it flows,” says Stevenson.

The community rejects the Trump administration’s proposed budget that cuts superfund money by 30%.

Demonstrators also reject recommendations from the task force set up by the new EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.

“These recommendations encourage private investment in the site cleanups that allow quick inadequate remediation. This site here is not fully cleaned up, with the evaluation process near complete and once completed, it will be deleted from the list of EPA’s national priorities,” explains Rosanne Barone with the Texas Campaign for the Environment.

They also fear a developer that purchased the land wants to build luxury condominiums A.S.A.P. Development, they say, will skimp on cleanup, and price them out of their homes.

Folks here cite that as recently at 2016, 3% of children in the area, 15 and under, were still testing above the acceptable level of lead in their system.

Washington, D.C. decisions hitting home, and for H-town, a community resisting profits over progress.

One Bin for All is dead. So how should Houston handle its trash?

Written by

Houston Chronicle Op-Ed
By Rosanne Barone

It’s unfortunate that the recent discussions in City Hall regarding Houston’s plan to sign a long-term recycling contract have been clouded by the ghost of One Bin for All.

That idea would have made Houstonians combine all their discards into one bin. It was adamantly rejected by the recycling industry, environmental justice advocates and many others.

The national Paper Recycling Coalition, Steel Recycling Institute, Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries and others knew that when used materials, food and pet waste are all combined together, it is also known as another name — “trash” — and so they wrote letters to then-Mayor Annise Parker advising her against this policy.

Thankfully, when Mayor Turner took office in 2016, he knew the best practice for Houston is to keep recyclable materials separate and clean so they can be sold to commodity markets and generate revenue for the City.

Turner himself reminded us at a press conference on June 28 that he has no interest in bringing back a proposal that would reverse Houston’s progress on sustainability, so let’s drop it.

Instead, let’s talk about the guaranteed economic opportunities and environmental protections that are now on the horizon as the city works to improve curbside recycling. According to the Houston-Galveston Area Council, when we include composters, hard-plastics reclaimers, electronics processors, construction- and demolition-debris recyclers and manufacturers of goods made from recycled items, we have 21,550 recycling jobs in our region and an industrial output of $4.5 billion per year.

Who knew recycling was so vital for Houston’s economy? Additionally, throwing all discards into landfills supports a disposable, wasteful culture while doing real damage to our environment. There are 56 leaking landfills in the state of Texas, four in Harris County and one in Fort Bend County. Landfills are also more often than not located in low-income neighborhoods, so trashing valuable materials also perpetuates environmental injustice.

Houston should instead follow other U.S. cities committed to sustainability by developing a zero-waste plan. Out of the nation’s 10 largest cities, Houston is the only one lacking a zero-waste plan, or at least a plan to get closer to it, like in San Antonio.

For many cities, zero waste means more than 90 percent of materials will be diverted from landfills through recycling, composting and reuse.

That sounds like a big goal, but it’s also a process that we can take time one step at a time. Like any plan for successful progress, there should be measurable benchmarks to help us get where we need to be.

For example, some cities focus on launching composting pilot programs within a few years, while others aim to offer recycling at all multifamily housing, including offering training to residents. Houston is unique, and we can create our own individualized plan.

My number one recommendation to start is to expand recycling to apartments. When I mentioned to City Council recently that 40 percent of Houston residents live in apartments and have no way to recycle other than collecting materials in their own personal bins and bringing them to a recycling facility themselves, some council members recognized this as an urgent problem.

Another immediate step would be to provide recycling to businesses and commercial industries in Houston, accounting for a huge amount of waste produced by people at work.

And a pilot program for curbside composting would be a huge way to reduce organic matter in landfills which contributes significantly to the emission of greenhouse gases.

The City must lead by example, and should start by offering recycling in all public buildings, outdoor recreation spaces and on public transportation. In many cities with a zero-waste goal, the city offers recycling training and education to residents. The more the public feels involved in the process, the more likely they are to participate.

An improved recycling system for Houston isn’t just about catching up to other cities or becoming a global leader. It’s about responsibly reusing our resources to create jobs and improve not just some communities, but to provide recycling for all.

Rosanne Barone is the Houston Program Director for Texas Campaign for the Environment.

Developing leaders to change the world

Written by

TCE Blog
by Robin Schneider, Executive Director

When one of our canvassers knocks on your door, they are there to represent an issue of critical importance to protecting clean air, water, and land in the great state of Texas. They are also a walking, talking embodiment of one of our core values at Texas Campaign for the Environment: developing service-oriented leadership by training skilled activists to change our democracy, and our communities, one person at a time.

So we are proud to see our activists whose skills we have developed take great strides in their careers to transform policy for a healthier, more just world.

Melanie Scruggs served as the Houston Program Director for more three years. She started with TCE as a canvasser in our Austin field office and moved to Houston, where she is originally from, to become a leading expert and advocate for recycling and Zero Waste. As an organizer deeply embedded in Houston’s environmental community, she served as an ally to local environmental justice groups and strengthened TCE’s relationships in coalitions we work with across the country.

Melanie has recently left to attend the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs Global Policy Studies masters’ degree program in the fall. We are proud knowing that Texas Campaign for the Environment has been the launching pad for her career in public policy.

“Working with Texas Campaign for the Environment has been the best experience in my life thus far. I walked through the door in 2012 considering myself an activist, but didn’t know how to transform my ideals into change,” Melanie says. “Four years later, I have gained invaluable organizing skills and knowledge to make a difference in Texas and the world, and I plan to do just that.”

TCE has hired Rosanne Barone as our new Houston Program Director.  She has already begun to make an impact at TCE and we know she will do a fantastic job empowering and growing the environmental community in the Greater Houston area and beyond. Please contact Rosanne anytime by calling our Houston office at 713-337-4192 or sending her an email at rosanne(at)texasenvironment.org. She has excellent experience in organizing for renewable energy investment and civic engagement on college campuses from her work with NYPIRG in New York City. We are lucky to have her!

Texas’ environmental movement is growing and changing for the better. Our job is to keep that momentum going, recruit and train new leaders for that movement, and get results. We are committed to providing career opportunities for people interested in making a difference, who care about sustainability, climate change, and social justice. For folks getting in at the ground level of their organizing career, you can read about and apply for our community organizing positions we have available here.

Report: Texas Tops Nation for Safe Drinking Water Violations

Written by

Public News Service
By Mark Richardson

AUSTIN – Water systems in Texas have the nation’s worst record for violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a new report says.

Researchers for the Natural Resources Defense Council looked at Environmental Protection Agency data from 2015 and found almost 14,000 violations in more than 5,000 water systems that together, serve 7 million Texans. The report also found that no penalties were assessed for 8-in-10 of those violations.
Robin Schneider, executive director at the Texas Campaign for the Environment, said she believes a weak state environmental agency is the main reason Texas topped the list.

“We’re the state that has the second-largest number of people and, compared to California, we have so much less of a priority when it comes to environmental protection,” Schneider said. “Unfortunately, it’s the health of Texans that is at stake.”

The report said the U.S. needs to invest $380 billion to bring water systems across the country into compliance. However, President Trump’s recent budget proposal called for a 30 percent cut to the EPA’s budget to reduce regulations. The report said that would mean less staff to enforce the law and less money for water system improvements.

Erik Olson, report coauthor and director of the NRDC’s Health Program, said the solution is for federal and state officials to enforce current clean water regulations, and to fund improvements for aging water systems.

“We’re living off our great grandparents’ investments. A lot of these water systems are 100 years old or older and really need to be updated,” Olson said. “So, we need to make those investments, we need to strengthen the rules and we need to fix our enforcement system.”

He pointed out that failures in the reporting system can often hide major health problems, as they did in Flint, Mich. Nationally, the report said 77 million people get their water from systems that have experienced safety violations.

How grassroots groups are mobilizing Texans on top issues

Written by

Texas Tribune
By Alex Samuels
Original Story Here

Five community organizers tell us how they rally people around issues like school funding and the environment.

Corey Troiani
Dallas-Fort Worth program director, Texas Campaign for the Environment

Key issues: safer regulations for the disposal of sludge waste, preserving local options to restrict single-use check-out bags and expanding access to recycling and composting programs in cities
Location: Austin, Dallas and Houston
Number of members: Approximately 30,000
Get involved: Website or Facebook

LAURA BUCKMAN FOR THE TEXAS TRIBUNE

“When you have strength in numbers, those lawmakers are counting you as constituent voters in their district and they’re going to take that seriously.”

— Corey Troiani

What kinds of organizing methods are most effective and why?

Corey Troiani: The leading organizing method that we use is face-to-face organizing. We send canvassers into communities to talk directly to constituents of state lawmakers and residents of Texas who care about environmental issues. I think talking to people face-to-face is the best way to get them engaged, involved and invested in issues like these.

Biggest challenges in getting people to engage around your issue?

CT: I think one of the challenges that we face is this sort of “armchair activism,” where people sit back and sign a petition or take some sort of action through a website and feel like that is their contribution to an issue. We can’t just sign a single petition and expect legislation to change.

How do local movements play at the state level and impact the state debate?

CT: I think grassroots and local groups have an impact because, regardless of where you are in the state, grassroots organizations are working with strength in numbers. Assuming that you have a good campaign strategy, you’re putting pressure on a state lawmaker or some other target that you can have an impact with. When you have strength in numbers, those lawmakers are counting you as constituent voters in their district and they’re going to take that seriously.

What kind of engagement are you seeing post-election?

CT: I’m seeing that people are understanding that politics is important and that participating is important. Somebody who just thought, “I’m going to go vote at the polls every couple of years or every four years,” is now somebody who wants to know when their local representative is having a town hall meeting and going to that.

Walgreens responds to your letters

Written by

wgprotest2TCE Blog
Robin Schneider, Executive Director

It’s good to know that the letters you send to corporate or government decision-makers – hundreds or thousands of letters for each campaign – really do make a difference. One way we know this is true: our letter-writing targets often write back! They respond to you because they are concerned what their customers and voters think about their policies.

In May 2015, thousands of TCE supporters started sending letters to Walgreens calling on the company to get tough on toxic chemicals. We sent Walgreens this organizational letter urging the company to finalize its long-promised safe chemicals policy. Walgreens started writing back to our supporters within one month! Here are excerpts of their response letter and our perspective on the key points.

Walgreens:
“Walgreens has a long history of action involving product safety and working to ensure that our owned-brand products meet federal, state, and local safety regulations and guidelines.”

Our response:
That is all well and good except for the fact that in the U.S. and in Texas, regulations and guidelines are not adequate. If those standards were doing the job, we would not have toxic products on any store shelves. Sadly, the government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting Texans from unnecessary dangerous chemicals in consumer products. That’s why we need big retailers like Walgreens to step in and “mind the store.” Even some of Walgreens “owned-brand products” (or house brands) tested high for toxic chemicals, such as Nice! Powdered Vinyl Gloves and Pet Shoppe Tennis Ball Dog Toy.

Walgreens:
“[W]e recognize that many of our customers are concerned about the chemical ingredients of the products they buy and bring into their homes.”

Our response:
It’s great that Walgreens is cares about their customers’ concerns. Every additional letter that our supporters write drives that point home. We hope the company will take action to get harmful chemicals out of products they sell.

Walgreens:
“The [house brand] Ology features a variety of household and personal care products that are free of chemicals of concern.”

Our response:
It’s great that Walgreens has shown that it can work with suppliers to get rid of certain chemicals of concern. This shows that the company has the power to get toxic chemicals out of products on store shelves. We also appreciate that Walgreens lists the chemicals of concern that are not in Ology products on its website. Now they need to take the next step and broaden the list of safer products and the chemicals of concern so that all of its house branded products and brand name products are safer and free of toxic chemicals.

Walgreens:
“We are making it our priority to continue our work with the vendor and retail community to address product ingredients and we recently initiated organizational changes that identify this as a key component of our company’s broader corporate social responsibility program. We are in the process of developing a Chemical Sustainability Program.”

wgprotestOur response:
We congratulate Walgreens for taking these first steps. Now we would like them to finish the job, and make sure their policy is as comprehensive and as protective of the health of our families and pets as possible. It should be transparent so that they can be held accountable to high standards of performance on this journey to safer products. A comprehensive approach by Walgreens should include these essential elements:

  • Disclosure of toxic chemicals (including in fragrances) in private label and brand name products to Walgreens and customers, especially for cosmetics, cleaning products, and other products for infants, children and women of childbearing age, and pet supplies;
  • Development of a comprehensive Restricted Substance List (RSL) for chemicals in private label and brand name products, especially for cosmetics, cleaning products, and other products for infants, children and women of childbearing age, and pet supplies;
  • Encouraging suppliers to reduce, phase out and eliminate chemicals of high concern in private label and brand name products;
  • Avoiding “regrettable substitutes”, to ensure that suppliers don’t transition from one dangerous chemical to another; and
  • Publicly reporting on benchmarks and a time frame for implementing their policy.

Walgreens is a company dedicated to health and wellness, and so it has a responsibility to ensure their products don’t contain toxic chemicals. In the months to come, we will be paying close attention to the chemicals policy they develop and announce. We want Walgreens to do what’s right for our families!

Environmentalists Protest Dollar Stores Toxic Inventory

Written by

fd-protest1KLBJ Newsroom

Austin environmentalists are targeting those Dollar stores you see around town and throughout the state. They protested in front of a Family Dollar store in South Austin. They say low-income families and communities of color are getting sick from toxic products bought there.

According to Texas Campaign for the Environment’s Andrew Dobbs, over 71 percent of the products from the four leading dollar store chains in Texas they had lab tested, contained at least one or more hazardous chemicals. Dobbs says the four big dollar chains, including Dollar General, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree and Just 99 Cents Stores, earn an estimated $36 billion dollars annually and will sometimes sell expired, discontinued merchandise and recalled products. Dobbs says the stores also sell products with hazardous plasticizers and hormone disrupters.

Those substances have been linked to learning disabilities, diabetes, cancer and other illnesses that disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.

“Here at Family Dollar,” Dobbs explains, “they were selling a set of earrings. They could be marketed towards children, but they’re just low-dollar earrings with a cardboard backing. Those had 65 times the safe level of lead in them. according to independent laboratory tests.”

Dobbs claims the dollar stores could clean up their act without wrecking their bottom lines.

“There are safer alternatives to every one of these chemicals that are no more expensive than the ones they’re using today.” Dobbs goes on to say “They might have to be slightly more conscientious, but it shouldn’t cost them any more money.” He points to the actions of other retailers. “Their competitors including Wal-Mart are starting to make moves in the right direction. If Wal-Mart and Target and a variety of other retailers can do this, they can too.”

fd-protest2