Sacramento – In a move to help reduce litter and boost demand for used plastic materials, the California State Assembly today approved AB 792, a proposal by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) that phases-in the minimum amount of recycled materials plastic beverage bottles must contain.

“We need to use less plastic. Otherwise, there will be more plastic in our oceans than fish by 2050,” said Ting. “That’s a terrible cost to our environment if manufacturers are allowed to continue making new plastic every time they need a bottle. They should reuse what they’ve already made.”

On top of dwindling domestic demand for recycled plastic, China and other overseas markets stopped buying much of California’s recycled waste last year. Now a crisis is mounting, as recyclable plastic is stacking up in warehouses or going to landfills. The European Union (EU) has already set a goal of 25% recycled content in their plastic bottles by 2025 and 30% by 2030. AB 792 establishes the following timeframe for minimum recycled content in plastic beverage bottles:

• January 2021   - 25% minimum content
• January 2025   - 50% minimum content
• January 2030   - 75% minimum content

A 100% minimum content requirement by 2035 was stricken during a committee hearing this month.  Still, the proposal represents a big step in the right direction, going further than the EU and reducing the need to continue making new plastic.

“Beverage producers like touting the recyclability of their plastic bottles. AB 792 compels them to put their money where their mouth is and buy the plastic back to make new bottles—closing the loop,” said Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste.

AB 792 now heads to the Senate for consideration. All bills must reach the Governor’s desk by September 13.

Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, released the following statement about the May Revision of Governor Gavin Newsom’s state budget proposal for the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which starts on July 1. The Assembly Budget Committee released a preliminary analysis of the proposal. Ting’s statement is as follows:

“At a time of unparalleled prosperity in our state, nearly 20% of Californians live in poverty and millions more are living right on the edge.  Since our state budget is a declaration of our values, we must continue to rebuild our social infrastructure and invest in education, health, human services, and housing programs to make life better for all Californians.  I applaud the direction of Governor Newsom’s May Revision proposals and am pleased he has funded many long-standing legislative priorities.  While there are still some existing differences between our proposals and his, I am confident we will reconcile them and deliver a balanced, on-time budget by June 15.”

#   #   #   #   #

Sacramento, CA – In a move to protect privacy and prevent misuse of technology, the California State Assembly today approved AB 1215, a proposal by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) that bans law enforcement from using facial recognition and biometric scanners in body cameras. Body cameras are typically adopted for accountability and transparency purposes, not to serve as roving surveillance systems. In addition, face scanning technology routinely misidentifies people, particularly women, youth and people of color.

“Without my bill, face recognition technology can subject law-abiding citizens to perpetual police line-ups, as their every movement is tracked without consent. Its use, if left unchecked, undermines public trust in government institutions and unduly intrudes on one’s constitutional right to privacy. AB 1215 is an important civil rights measure that will prevent exploitation of vulnerable communities,” said Ting.

Digital privacy has increasingly become a concern among Californians. In a March 2019 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) poll, 82% of likely voters statewide and 79% in the Bay Area disagreed with the government being able to monitor and track a person using biometric information. Such support is not surprising, in light of reports that technology developed by the U.S.’s top online retailer falsely identified 28 sitting members of Congress as people who have been arrested for crimes. The CEO of the largest provider of body cameras has also stated that facial recognition technology was not accurate enough to be deployed on his company’s products.

“Body cameras should work for the people, not against the people,” says Matt Cagle, Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Attorney for the ACLU of Northern California. “Face-scanning body cameras would be a dangerous, radical expansion of surveillance powers at a time when our top priority should be creating new approaches to public safety that work for all of us.”

Local Bay Area cities are also troubled by the implications of this still imperfect technology and are set to take action against its use. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on a proposal May 14 that bans local agencies from purchasing or using facial recognition technology. Oakland is also considering a similar prohibition. Both proposals go further than AB 1215, which only applies the ban to police-worn body cameras.

Ting’s proposal moves to the Senate for consideration. This year’s deadline for all bills to reach the Governor’s desk is September 13.

(Sacramento, CA) – Less than two weeks after the Poway shooting, the California State Assembly today affirmed its commitment to preventing more gun violence by approving AB 61, by a vote of 54-17. The bill by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) enables more Californians to petition a court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) by adding school workers, employers and co-workers to the list of people who can ask a judge to temporarily take away someone’s firearms if they pose a danger to themselves or others. Current law only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to do so.

“Last year’s senseless shooting at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks compelled me to renew efforts to expand California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law. We have another incident, this time at a place of worship in Poway – when will it end? I’m glad to see my Assembly colleagues agree we have to do more to prevent tragedies,” said Ting, who has seen two previous versions of his bill vetoed by Governor Brown. “Our new governor has indicated he is open to more gun safety laws. I am hopeful that third time’s the charm.”

Ting believes the expansion is necessary because school campuses and workplaces have increasingly become sites for mass shootings. “We often spend more time with our classmates and co-workers than we do at home. I’d like the people we interact with most to have this effective tool available to them,” said Ting.

GVROs are sometimes referred to as “red flag laws” and have been enacted in fourteen states. According to the California Department of Justice, GVROs have been issued 614 times from 2016 to the end of 2018 with the bulk of the orders (424) obtained last year, as more individuals become aware of this effective public safety tool. When a judge grants a restraining order, a gun owner must surrender their firearms for 21 days. It can be extended to a full year after a hearing.

AB 61 now heads to the Senate for consideration. All bills must reach Governor Newsom’s desk by September 13.